5 ms·

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

by kristofferR 8y ago

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I believe the answer is yes, in that no one is forced to read spam or flyers.
- icebraining 8y ago
  kristofferR wrote "can hear you" not "wants to hear you".
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Yes, and by being limited to local flyers, the vast majority of America cannot hear your speech.
toofy 8y ago
> If you are only allowed to speak freely when no one can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech? Yes. Of course you are being allowed freedom of speech.
Udik 8y ago
Sure. For example, you can say what you want, after you've been exiled by the government to some desert island. An alternative would be a special muzzle to be fitted on the mouth of someone, so that he can say what he wants but emit no sound. /s
root_axis 8y ago
This is a misleading characterization of the situation. Being banned from an arbitrary website doesn't mean that nobody can hear you. Twitter is not the internet, you are free to post whatever content you want on a platform that is friendlier to the message or on your own personal platform. Nobody owes you a platform.
- coffeemug 8y ago
  Nobody owes you not selling your data either. But social networks got so big and powerful that we're developing specialized norms for this sort of stuff because on balance it's better to live in a society where our data doesn't get sold. The same is true for speech and platforms -- nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our society. It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual. Why exactly? The New York Times and the wire services were once the primary venue for most newspaper publication. There was never a requirement that anyone be able to write articles for them. The thing is allowing garbage views into "record of note" publications seriously empowers them. As an earlier article points out, youtube's algorithm is weight towards feeding people polarized extremist rants because these get responses (just the other day, my suggested "next videos" included a client change denier and Jordan Peterson for zero reason). We're looking at the result of extreme ideological polarization and these don't look pretty. A good portion of what could be called "hate speech" is pseudo-science presenting itself as science and this to someone who's (probably foolishly) expecting a bit of vetting on a large website, this pseudo-science sell is especially effective. Moreover, a large portion of those who uses a social network know that the "open web" exists and are quite capable of cruising it. Again, by letting into a venue the naive person imagines is vetted, you have increased its momentum considerably. The average person isn't necessary super competent at sorting modern issues. A good portion of heinous content leverages this by appearing respectable and being the web site of
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      Free speech norms ≠ free speech absolutism. People could rightly have complained from a "free speech" position if the NYT published only left-wing letters-to-the-editor. They could also rightly complain if the NYT explicitly refused to publish a totally reasonable opinion piece (or more extreme: refuse a paid ad that was totally reasonable) because of tangential critiques of the author's statements in other contexts. Does that mean the NYT would have to do whatever the complainers say? No. But such complaints fairly relate to the ideas of "free speech norms" regardless of the NYT being an independent business.
fao_ 8y ago
You need to rephrase this to: "If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?" This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.
- kristofferR 8y ago
  Shouting is a horrible analogy since shouting is forcing itself on others wether they want to listen or not. "Being available to be spoken/listened to" is more accurate. You also need to remember that the places we're talking about are de facto public spaces due to their practical monopolies on speech. They are private spaces legally and the companies who own them can be as discriminatory as they want in regards to who they allow to speak from a legal standpoint, but they shouldn't abuse their power to do so. If they do discriminate too much, they should be regulated to be neutral places for speech, considering their excessive clout. A future where a select group of companies control what people hear, discuss and think is scary.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    Such regulation will be swatted down, I'm sure. The private spaces have legal protections guaranteed by the constitution. Just like the christian baker who was protected from being forced to decorate cakes with messages he found offensive, these companies will be protected from being forced to publish speech they find offensive. The analogy is appropriate in the sense that its not the "shouting" that is offensive, but rather that the message is considered offensive in the private place where it is expressed against the wishes of the owner of that private place.
- tapland 8y ago
  I fail to recognize the 'forced to listen' part. I very rarely see political opinions at all on twitter or youtube, because I don't follow those topics. Also isn't filter bubbles a thing?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bunderbunder 8y ago
> If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you No one? Hyperbole like this only serves to muddy the waters. Furthermore, I'm curious if those who believe that having access to social media needs to be considered a fundamental right really have the courage of their convictions: If this is the case, then we've got bigger problems than whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos can use it to act like a tool in public. There are whole classes of people who don't have easy access to the hardware and constant Internet connections required to take part, and their freedom of speech has clearly been curtailed. Perhaps there's a need to set up a social fund to ensure that their basic human rights are being preserved by buying them smartphones with data plans, and forcing the nation's cellular providers to extend coverage to every nook and cranny of the country.
- kristofferR 8y ago
  I'm not sure if you're joking or not, since the LifeLine program (nicknamed ObamaPhone by the right) has provided deeply government subsidized phone access since 1985 and cellular providers already are required to provide coverage to unprofitable, but inhabited areas.

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

I believe the answer is yes, in that no one is forced to read spam or flyers.

icebraining 8y ago
kristofferR wrote "can hear you" not "wants to hear you".
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  Yes, and by being limited to local flyers, the vast majority of America cannot hear your speech.

toofy 8y ago

> If you are only allowed to speak freely when no one can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech? Yes. Of course you are being allowed freedom of speech.

Udik 8y ago

Sure. For example, you can say what you want, after you've been exiled by the government to some desert island. An alternative would be a special muzzle to be fitted on the mouth of someone, so that he can say what he wants but emit no sound. /s

root_axis 8y ago

This is a misleading characterization of the situation. Being banned from an arbitrary website doesn't mean that nobody can hear you. Twitter is not the internet, you are free to post whatever content you want on a platform that is friendlier to the message or on your own personal platform. Nobody owes you a platform.

coffeemug 8y ago
Nobody owes you not selling your data either. But social networks got so big and powerful that we're developing specialized norms for this sort of stuff because on balance it's better to live in a society where our data doesn't get sold. The same is true for speech and platforms -- nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our society. It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual. Why exactly? The New York Times and the wire services were once the primary venue for most newspaper publication. There was never a requirement that anyone be able to write articles for them. The thing is allowing garbage views into "record of note" publications seriously empowers them. As an earlier article points out, youtube's algorithm is weight towards feeding people polarized extremist rants because these get responses (just the other day, my suggested "next videos" included a client change denier and Jordan Peterson for zero reason). We're looking at the result of extreme ideological polarization and these don't look pretty. A good portion of what could be called "hate speech" is pseudo-science presenting itself as science and this to someone who's (probably foolishly) expecting a bit of vetting on a large website, this pseudo-science sell is especially effective. Moreover, a large portion of those who uses a social network know that the "open web" exists and are quite capable of cruising it. Again, by letting into a venue the naive person imagines is vetted, you have increased its momentum considerably. The average person isn't necessary super competent at sorting modern issues. A good portion of heinous content leverages this by appearing respectable and being the web site of
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    Free speech norms ≠ free speech absolutism. People could rightly have complained from a "free speech" position if the NYT published only left-wing letters-to-the-editor. They could also rightly complain if the NYT explicitly refused to publish a totally reasonable opinion piece (or more extreme: refuse a paid ad that was totally reasonable) because of tangential critiques of the author's statements in other contexts. Does that mean the NYT would have to do whatever the complainers say? No. But such complaints fairly relate to the ideas of "free speech norms" regardless of the NYT being an independent business.

fao_ 8y ago

You need to rephrase this to: "If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?" This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.

kristofferR 8y ago
Shouting is a horrible analogy since shouting is forcing itself on others wether they want to listen or not. "Being available to be spoken/listened to" is more accurate. You also need to remember that the places we're talking about are de facto public spaces due to their practical monopolies on speech. They are private spaces legally and the companies who own them can be as discriminatory as they want in regards to who they allow to speak from a legal standpoint, but they shouldn't abuse their power to do so. If they do discriminate too much, they should be regulated to be neutral places for speech, considering their excessive clout. A future where a select group of companies control what people hear, discuss and think is scary.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  Such regulation will be swatted down, I'm sure. The private spaces have legal protections guaranteed by the constitution. Just like the christian baker who was protected from being forced to decorate cakes with messages he found offensive, these companies will be protected from being forced to publish speech they find offensive. The analogy is appropriate in the sense that its not the "shouting" that is offensive, but rather that the message is considered offensive in the private place where it is expressed against the wishes of the owner of that private place.
tapland 8y ago
I fail to recognize the 'forced to listen' part. I very rarely see political opinions at all on twitter or youtube, because I don't follow those topics. Also isn't filter bubbles a thing?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bunderbunder 8y ago

> If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you No one? Hyperbole like this only serves to muddy the waters. Furthermore, I'm curious if those who believe that having access to social media needs to be considered a fundamental right really have the courage of their convictions: If this is the case, then we've got bigger problems than whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos can use it to act like a tool in public. There are whole classes of people who don't have easy access to the hardware and constant Internet connections required to take part, and their freedom of speech has clearly been curtailed. Perhaps there's a need to set up a social fund to ensure that their basic human rights are being preserved by buying them smartphones with data plans, and forcing the nation's cellular providers to extend coverage to every nook and cranny of the country.

kristofferR 8y ago
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, since the LifeLine program (nicknamed ObamaPhone by the right) has provided deeply government subsidized phone access since 1985 and cellular providers already are required to provide coverage to unprofitable, but inhabited areas.