6 ms·

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for

by Inu 8y ago

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Veraticus 8y ago
Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have no obligation to platform any idea. They have the freedom to remove any content on their platforms they like, and your freedom of speech doesn't trump theirs. Of course, you can continue saying whatever it is you like -- you just have to find a platform for it yourself.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Essentially. A person's freedom of speech doesn't imply curtailment of another person's freedom of the press.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bjt2n3904 8y ago
Thank you. Free speech isn't just an amendment for the government, it's a principle for society. If Facebook were a television station with limited air time for a single track, it would be perfectly valid for them to decide (reasonably) who gets air time. However, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have infinite tracks and time. I don't think the OPs argument is as strong, with that in mind.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- thieving_magpie 8y ago
  Well now you're violating my free speech by telling me I can't decide what content I host on my website.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    There is a huge difference between your website in which you post in your name, and Facebook which was created as a platform to allow billions of people to post in their name.
  - vokep 8y ago
    the difference is that youtube/facebook are not publications themselves, but platforms that allow you to publish. So you already aren't deciding what to host, as a user-content driven site, you by default allow anything, then naturally hopefully for moral reasons but necessarily legal ones, you ban illegal content. Beyond that, it still is a privately hosted thing so I'd still agree that your self run user-content based site may ban whatever it likes. However when you reach a general use size, where people rely on your platform for free speech, things certainly feel different. I'm not sure what the right move is, but I don't think its as simple as "my private site is my private site, thats the end of it"
    - dr-detroit 8y ago
      What about the legal risk associated with letting the Frog Brigade post their terrorist cookbook on your platform? Does Zuckerberg have to come to their house and load the bullets into the gun for them so they can make a statement about how angry they are? Because he made an app for people to cheat? I fail to see the connection.
      - vokep 8y ago
        >What about the legal risk associated with letting the Frog Brigade post their terrorist cookbook on your platform? Like I said, banning illegal content is the first step that anyone ought to take. Generally this is done via moderation staff of the site + user submitted reports. If you're providing a free platform and terrorists start using it as their communication channel, then you're only at legal risk if you do nothing to stop them. However, I'm imagining things like the NZ shooter's 8chan post, where a direct threat is made or a direct implication of violent acts to come. Posting a "terrorist cookbook" actually is a good example, as its sort of right on the line. It seems to be the sort of information that only has negative uses, on the other hand its just information, as opposed to an actual threat. I'm not really sure if such things should be allowed... it could be helpful to terrorists which is bad, but also censoring information is nearly impossible and almost always seems the wrong way to go. >Does Zuckerberg have to come to their house and load the bullets into the gun for them so they can make a statement about how angry they are? Because he made an app for people to cheat? I fail to see the connection. As do I...I really don't get what you're trying to say here, can you restate?
jrumbut 8y ago
There's a difference between supporting someone's right to speech and handing them a microphone and gathering up an audience for them. There is some room for human judgment and give and take here, at this time there is absolutely no shortage of platforms that allow anyone to broadcast any awful thing they can dream up. Email, web sites, street corners, I believe there can be different standards for different places.
- satokema_work 8y ago
  There's no shortage of street corners to protest on. Why are you mad that we pepper spray you when you try to protest in front of the bankers' offices?
falcrist 8y ago
Good old Chomsky. I really like his views on this topic. However the question leads down a rabbithole. Absolute freedom is a contradictory concept. How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? Aren't you infringing on his rights? Someone needs to draw a line. So what about a social media oligopoly? How dominant does Google need to be before you have to tell them to allow freedom of speech. What about network neutrality? Etc etc... It's not so easy to answer this question.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  It's a centuries old debate initially had out by Hobbes and Rousseau. Hobbes' famous phrase from Leviathan "bellum omnium contra omnus" (the war of all against all) describes absolute freedom as being problematic indeed. Rosseau provides an answer in The Social Contract to say you can't have a war of all against all, you instead need the state to be responsible for being able to imprison people and collect taxes on them and this alleviates (generally speaking, to a large degree) the problems absolute freedom present.
- klntsky 8y ago
  > How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? This is unrelated. If it is your home, you are free to protect it by any means.
- int_19h 8y ago
  He's not talking about absolute freedom in general, though. Only about absolute freedom of speech. And there's no paradox of tolerance with speech - you can tolerate intolerant speech just fine, so long as you police the actions.
satokema_work 8y ago
This. A big problem is oligarchic in nature: if you believe that ISPs should be classified as common carrier utilities that should not be permitted to limit or censor the data you receive within reason, then the oligarchic content hubs should similarly be common carriers of speech. I don't have a rock solid argument on this, this is just an equivalence I'm asserting.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  ISPs are utilities because you only have one option for ISP (running a wire to your house). Content hubs take less than a second to switch, there is no lock in. The lack of ability to switch providers is what makes it important to have regulations, not just the fact that it is labeled a common carrier.
  - vokep 8y ago
    There is a public lock in. You can switch to another content hub like you can move to a new town for a different ISP. I think that's at the heart of disagreement here: do these content hubs count as public spaces for unregulated communication, or as private spaces, regulated at the will of the owner of the space? For many, due to the population present, other content hubs are not the same thing as facebook/youtube/twitter.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      What lock in? There is no friction in typing in a different website's address. Just because other people use Facebook doesn't mean you're locked into that. People watch different TV shows, different movies, read different books, this is no different. No one is stopping you from making your own forum or website.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        The utility of the forum comes from other people. Social graph is absolutely a means of lock-in, and it's long overdue for us to recognize that.
fixermark 8y ago
... and yet, child pornography possession and distribution is illegal. Do we think Chomsky would find this unacceptable?
- lukifer 8y ago
  Chomsky’s position is that the burden of proof is on state violence to justify itself, and I think he would agree it’s clearly justified in that case. However, that’s a very narrowly scoped restriction (and it’s also not clear that such distribution is a type of “speech”). A more appropriate question would be: would Chomsky support free speech for an advocacy group such as NAMBLA, or for creating mangas that depict drawings similar to CP? Those are exactly the type of speech/expression that are clearly vile, yet should still be protected from interference by state violence, from the civil-libertarian perspective.
- gpm 8y ago
  I suspect that Chomsky would consider child porn - or at least the part of it that is illegal - not speech in this sense. Speech is the process of communication ideas. Porn is the process of sexually arousing someone remotely. Criminalizing the latter is not criminalizing the former.
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    You do end up criminalizing numbers though.
    - sneakernets 8y ago
      There has to be a point where "criminalizing a number" doesn't really work. A HD-DVD master key is one thing, a huge binary file is another. HD-DVD master key requires specific "numberness" to work, while a binary file can still convey similar information yet be a completely different set of numbers. if I take two pictures in rapid succession of a still life, the two pictures' jpeg data and checksum hashes aren't going to be even close to matching.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
That's all fine and good until somebody burns a cross on your lawn. Pretty sure you're not going to be happy with their free speech rights at that point. Free speech absolutism is naturally at odds with property rights absolutism. The question then becomes under which circumstances should one be given precedence over the other.

by Inu 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Veraticus 8y ago

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have no obligation to platform any idea. They have the freedom to remove any content on their platforms they like, and your freedom of speech doesn't trump theirs. Of course, you can continue saying whatever it is you like -- you just have to find a platform for it yourself.

fixermark 8y ago
Essentially. A person's freedom of speech doesn't imply curtailment of another person's freedom of the press.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

bjt2n3904 8y ago

Thank you. Free speech isn't just an amendment for the government, it's a principle for society. If Facebook were a television station with limited air time for a single track, it would be perfectly valid for them to decide (reasonably) who gets air time. However, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have infinite tracks and time. I don't think the OPs argument is as strong, with that in mind.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
thieving_magpie 8y ago
Well now you're violating my free speech by telling me I can't decide what content I host on my website.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  There is a huge difference between your website in which you post in your name, and Facebook which was created as a platform to allow billions of people to post in their name.
- vokep 8y ago
  the difference is that youtube/facebook are not publications themselves, but platforms that allow you to publish. So you already aren't deciding what to host, as a user-content driven site, you by default allow anything, then naturally hopefully for moral reasons but necessarily legal ones, you ban illegal content. Beyond that, it still is a privately hosted thing so I'd still agree that your self run user-content based site may ban whatever it likes. However when you reach a general use size, where people rely on your platform for free speech, things certainly feel different. I'm not sure what the right move is, but I don't think its as simple as "my private site is my private site, thats the end of it"
  - dr-detroit 8y ago
    What about the legal risk associated with letting the Frog Brigade post their terrorist cookbook on your platform? Does Zuckerberg have to come to their house and load the bullets into the gun for them so they can make a statement about how angry they are? Because he made an app for people to cheat? I fail to see the connection.
    - vokep 8y ago
      >What about the legal risk associated with letting the Frog Brigade post their terrorist cookbook on your platform? Like I said, banning illegal content is the first step that anyone ought to take. Generally this is done via moderation staff of the site + user submitted reports. If you're providing a free platform and terrorists start using it as their communication channel, then you're only at legal risk if you do nothing to stop them. However, I'm imagining things like the NZ shooter's 8chan post, where a direct threat is made or a direct implication of violent acts to come. Posting a "terrorist cookbook" actually is a good example, as its sort of right on the line. It seems to be the sort of information that only has negative uses, on the other hand its just information, as opposed to an actual threat. I'm not really sure if such things should be allowed... it could be helpful to terrorists which is bad, but also censoring information is nearly impossible and almost always seems the wrong way to go. >Does Zuckerberg have to come to their house and load the bullets into the gun for them so they can make a statement about how angry they are? Because he made an app for people to cheat? I fail to see the connection. As do I...I really don't get what you're trying to say here, can you restate?

jrumbut 8y ago

There's a difference between supporting someone's right to speech and handing them a microphone and gathering up an audience for them. There is some room for human judgment and give and take here, at this time there is absolutely no shortage of platforms that allow anyone to broadcast any awful thing they can dream up. Email, web sites, street corners, I believe there can be different standards for different places.

satokema_work 8y ago
There's no shortage of street corners to protest on. Why are you mad that we pepper spray you when you try to protest in front of the bankers' offices?

falcrist 8y ago

Good old Chomsky. I really like his views on this topic. However the question leads down a rabbithole. Absolute freedom is a contradictory concept. How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? Aren't you infringing on his rights? Someone needs to draw a line. So what about a social media oligopoly? How dominant does Google need to be before you have to tell them to allow freedom of speech. What about network neutrality? Etc etc... It's not so easy to answer this question.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
It's a centuries old debate initially had out by Hobbes and Rousseau. Hobbes' famous phrase from Leviathan "bellum omnium contra omnus" (the war of all against all) describes absolute freedom as being problematic indeed. Rosseau provides an answer in The Social Contract to say you can't have a war of all against all, you instead need the state to be responsible for being able to imprison people and collect taxes on them and this alleviates (generally speaking, to a large degree) the problems absolute freedom present.
klntsky 8y ago
> How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? This is unrelated. If it is your home, you are free to protect it by any means.
int_19h 8y ago
He's not talking about absolute freedom in general, though. Only about absolute freedom of speech. And there's no paradox of tolerance with speech - you can tolerate intolerant speech just fine, so long as you police the actions.

satokema_work 8y ago

This. A big problem is oligarchic in nature: if you believe that ISPs should be classified as common carrier utilities that should not be permitted to limit or censor the data you receive within reason, then the oligarchic content hubs should similarly be common carriers of speech. I don't have a rock solid argument on this, this is just an equivalence I'm asserting.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
ISPs are utilities because you only have one option for ISP (running a wire to your house). Content hubs take less than a second to switch, there is no lock in. The lack of ability to switch providers is what makes it important to have regulations, not just the fact that it is labeled a common carrier.
- vokep 8y ago
  There is a public lock in. You can switch to another content hub like you can move to a new town for a different ISP. I think that's at the heart of disagreement here: do these content hubs count as public spaces for unregulated communication, or as private spaces, regulated at the will of the owner of the space? For many, due to the population present, other content hubs are not the same thing as facebook/youtube/twitter.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    What lock in? There is no friction in typing in a different website's address. Just because other people use Facebook doesn't mean you're locked into that. People watch different TV shows, different movies, read different books, this is no different. No one is stopping you from making your own forum or website.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      The utility of the forum comes from other people. Social graph is absolutely a means of lock-in, and it's long overdue for us to recognize that.

fixermark 8y ago

... and yet, child pornography possession and distribution is illegal. Do we think Chomsky would find this unacceptable?

lukifer 8y ago
Chomsky’s position is that the burden of proof is on state violence to justify itself, and I think he would agree it’s clearly justified in that case. However, that’s a very narrowly scoped restriction (and it’s also not clear that such distribution is a type of “speech”). A more appropriate question would be: would Chomsky support free speech for an advocacy group such as NAMBLA, or for creating mangas that depict drawings similar to CP? Those are exactly the type of speech/expression that are clearly vile, yet should still be protected from interference by state violence, from the civil-libertarian perspective.
gpm 8y ago
I suspect that Chomsky would consider child porn - or at least the part of it that is illegal - not speech in this sense. Speech is the process of communication ideas. Porn is the process of sexually arousing someone remotely. Criminalizing the latter is not criminalizing the former.
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  You do end up criminalizing numbers though.
  - sneakernets 8y ago
    There has to be a point where "criminalizing a number" doesn't really work. A HD-DVD master key is one thing, a huge binary file is another. HD-DVD master key requires specific "numberness" to work, while a binary file can still convey similar information yet be a completely different set of numbers. if I take two pictures in rapid succession of a still life, the two pictures' jpeg data and checksum hashes aren't going to be even close to matching.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago

That's all fine and good until somebody burns a cross on your lawn. Pretty sure you're not going to be happy with their free speech rights at that point. Free speech absolutism is naturally at odds with property rights absolutism. The question then becomes under which circumstances should one be given precedence over the other.