3 ms·

>What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. With the implication being that only the government can legally

by daenz 8y ago

>What we are entitled to is protection from the government in respect of the garbage we spout. With the implication being that only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space. If there are no public spaces, what does it matter if the government can't legally touch you, if a private entity legally can? We have to ensure publicly-owned spaces exist for free speech to exist.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space Its meaning is closer to the opposite than to this. > If there are no public spaces The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. Nazis aren’t having trouble distributing their message—Gab will find another registrar. Society, on the other hand, is having difficulty responding. The threat from the latter eclipses the former.
- thucydidesofusa 8y ago
  If you're weighing societal interest in the message, you're not a proponent of free speech.
- daenz 8y ago
  >The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. The internet is not a public space. But the argument I'm making is that part if it should be. The Nazis have only been online with hosting and registrars through the blind eyes of the private company gatekeepers. Actions like what is happening to Gab, while morally and logically defensible ("they're nazis and its private companies"), are proving that these spaces are not public, and owned entirely by private entities with their own rules. Rules that may be in your favor today, but not tomorrow. The internet is a vast resource, and we can all see it's where public discussion actually takes place. Companies can and should run their parts of it. But there should also be a part delegated to citizens and protected by the principles we claim to want to uphold.

by daenz 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> only the government can legally stop you while you're in a public space Its meaning is closer to the opposite than to this. > If there are no public spaces The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. Nazis aren’t having trouble distributing their message—Gab will find another registrar. Society, on the other hand, is having difficulty responding. The threat from the latter eclipses the former.

thucydidesofusa 8y ago
If you're weighing societal interest in the message, you're not a proponent of free speech.
daenz 8y ago
>The public space is deeper and more easily-accessible than ever before. The internet is not a public space. But the argument I'm making is that part if it should be. The Nazis have only been online with hosting and registrars through the blind eyes of the private company gatekeepers. Actions like what is happening to Gab, while morally and logically defensible ("they're nazis and its private companies"), are proving that these spaces are not public, and owned entirely by private entities with their own rules. Rules that may be in your favor today, but not tomorrow. The internet is a vast resource, and we can all see it's where public discussion actually takes place. Companies can and should run their parts of it. But there should also be a part delegated to citizens and protected by the principles we claim to want to uphold.