3 ms·

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

by 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]

by fao_ 8y ago

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]