5 ms·

Private business are not "places in the public sphere" and should be exclusionary if they want to. You think the New York Times is going to publish something ju

Private business are not "places in the public sphere" and should be exclusionary if they want to. You think the New York Times is going to publish something just because someone sends in their thoughts? It doesn't work that way, and neither should media on the internet.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public? YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in. We really no longer have the luxury of saying the government is the only entity that needs to respect your freedom of speech, and the law desperately needs to catch up with that reality.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space". Then how is it that it's illegal for a grocery store to exclude people because of their race? There is clearly some reason that people can't be excluded from a such a space, while there also exist exclusive private clubs.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I don't understand why this is hard to answer. The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to. I'm also a bit confused by your "then how do you..." framing, as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument, which is a pretty straightforward fact you can just look up in any state's indecent exposure statute.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to. And what is the basis of that definition? as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument There is something there. It does have to do with whether or not people can move and function in the public sphere.
        tptacek 8y ago
        I assume there are several hundred law review articles written by people who are quite a bit more qualified to debate this stuff than we are that can give you several answers to your first question. All I can tell you is: the Civil Rights Act explicitly defines the nature of places where protected classes can and can't be excluded. I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles. Is it because it's quite obvious from common sense, and doing so reveals the hypocrisy in politics and social media today?
        tptacek 8y ago
        What a rude way to end a discussion. I took the time to back to primary sources to inform my responses to you. You owed me better than this kind of snark.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I would argue that I wasn't trying to "approach the law axiomatically", since I was trying to demonstrate the law does not cover something that it arguably (by a more common "human understanding") should. The right to free speech arguably requires that we have a place to express that speech. Given that all communications are effectively corporate-owned, it's hard to argue that this isn't an important gap to discuss. Hosting providers, domain registrars, CDN services, certificate authorities, etc. are all owned by companies, and beyond platforms, infrastructure has now been increasingly used as a target to use to restrict speech. Perhaps an example would be if you could be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete. Or another example, people don't often consider, is that phone communications, like Internet communications, are owned by corporations. Wouldn't people consider it crazy if I suggested that Verizon or AT&T should have a say in what you said over their networks? I recognize that the law doesn't consider an Internet platform to be a public space where free speech is required, but my point is that this is the problem: Our laws have not kept up with the society we live in.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You can't be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete. Verizon is not allowed to monitor your phone calls (except as needed to maintain its network) under the ECPA.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  I apologize, but that's just silly. Private businesses are NOT platforms that should guarantee everyone the right to speak. If we follow that line of reasoning, then I suppose I could walk into any restaurant and demand to eat for free since as a private entity they shouldn't have the right to refuse me, right? If you're making the argument that the law needs to change and these platforms need to be regulated, that's another argument. Though I can foresee how that will lead to a dark path. I strongly believe in the right of a human to speak their mind without fear of persecution, but I also think a private business has the right to refuse speech they do not like.
- drb91 8y ago
  I’m confused. Are you arguing we deserve the right to say or do whatever we want in public? Not even the first amendment protects that, let alone on private property like walmart or youtube.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public? YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in. We really no longer have the luxury of saying the government is the only entity that needs to respect your freedom of speech, and the law desperately needs to catch up with that reality.

tptacek 8y ago
Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space".
- stcredzero 8y ago
  It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space". Then how is it that it's illegal for a grocery store to exclude people because of their race? There is clearly some reason that people can't be excluded from a such a space, while there also exist exclusive private clubs.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I don't understand why this is hard to answer. The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to. I'm also a bit confused by your "then how do you..." framing, as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument, which is a pretty straightforward fact you can just look up in any state's indecent exposure statute.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The reason you can't do that is because the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that explicitly, and includes its own definition of what institutions the law applies to. And what is the basis of that definition? as if you might be able to find a first-principles argument to refute my argument There is something there. It does have to do with whether or not people can move and function in the public sphere.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I assume there are several hundred law review articles written by people who are quite a bit more qualified to debate this stuff than we are that can give you several answers to your first question. All I can tell you is: the Civil Rights Act explicitly defines the nature of places where protected classes can and can't be excluded. I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        I'm not interested in trying to reconstruct it from first principles. Is it because it's quite obvious from common sense, and doing so reveals the hypocrisy in politics and social media today?
        tptacek 8y ago
        What a rude way to end a discussion. I took the time to back to primary sources to inform my responses to you. You owed me better than this kind of snark.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I would argue that I wasn't trying to "approach the law axiomatically", since I was trying to demonstrate the law does not cover something that it arguably (by a more common "human understanding") should. The right to free speech arguably requires that we have a place to express that speech. Given that all communications are effectively corporate-owned, it's hard to argue that this isn't an important gap to discuss. Hosting providers, domain registrars, CDN services, certificate authorities, etc. are all owned by companies, and beyond platforms, infrastructure has now been increasingly used as a target to use to restrict speech. Perhaps an example would be if you could be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete. Or another example, people don't often consider, is that phone communications, like Internet communications, are owned by corporations. Wouldn't people consider it crazy if I suggested that Verizon or AT&T should have a say in what you said over their networks? I recognize that the law doesn't consider an Internet platform to be a public space where free speech is required, but my point is that this is the problem: Our laws have not kept up with the society we live in.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    You can't be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete. Verizon is not allowed to monitor your phone calls (except as needed to maintain its network) under the ECPA.
throwaway8879 8y ago
I apologize, but that's just silly. Private businesses are NOT platforms that should guarantee everyone the right to speak. If we follow that line of reasoning, then I suppose I could walk into any restaurant and demand to eat for free since as a private entity they shouldn't have the right to refuse me, right? If you're making the argument that the law needs to change and these platforms need to be regulated, that's another argument. Though I can foresee how that will lead to a dark path. I strongly believe in the right of a human to speak their mind without fear of persecution, but I also think a private business has the right to refuse speech they do not like.
drb91 8y ago
I’m confused. Are you arguing we deserve the right to say or do whatever we want in public? Not even the first amendment protects that, let alone on private property like walmart or youtube.