3 ms·

Private individuals and businesses cannot do anything to prevent free speech. At best, they can petition the government to do so on their behalf. Hence the firs

by jbri 16y ago

Private individuals and businesses cannot do anything to prevent free speech. At best, they can petition the government to do so on their behalf. Hence the first amendment issue.

dangrossman 16y ago
So you've never heard of an NDA? What about the TOS that prohibits you from writing hate speech on Facebook, or posting porn to YouTube? You can contract away your right to speech as easily as anything else. This has nothing to do with the first amendment.
- jbri 16y ago
  What is a company going to do if you break an NDA? Call out a hit squad? Break your kneecaps? Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. With regards to your second issue, you're making the classic mistake of conflating a user's right to free speech with a provider's obligation to distribute that speech. Facebook has no obligation to distribute anything, and choosing not to distribute some things is not a limitation on free speech.
  - uxp 16y ago
    > Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. Only by suing you, civilly, in a civilian court of law. Unless the company is the United States Military, you can't really be thrown in jail for breaking the contract on its own. One would have to willfully spread the information learned while under the NDA, with the intent of that information causing damage, like a security hole in some bank's network a hired pen-tester finds that allows an attacker to illegally obtain money.
- benreesman 16y ago
  an nda is a contract, it's breach makes only the privileged party liable, and even then only civilly. wrong wrong wrong wrong!
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
imkevingao 16y ago
I disagree. If first amendment is executed explicitly as what it states, we can share whatever we want on the internet. Napster wouldn't have lost in court, and you can all all sorts of videos on Youtube. Private businesses over and over again tried to use lawyers to fight cases in the courts to protect their "intellectual property" and "copyright". By all means, I believe those things should be respected, or else the business world would be corrupted. But little by little, these private businesses are limiting to what we can share and express. For example, it is illegal to lipsync on Youtube because it violates the copyrights of music label companies.

by jbri 16y ago

Private individuals and businesses cannot do anything to prevent free speech. At best, they can petition the government to do so on their behalf. Hence the first amendment issue.

dangrossman 16y ago

So you've never heard of an NDA? What about the TOS that prohibits you from writing hate speech on Facebook, or posting porn to YouTube? You can contract away your right to speech as easily as anything else. This has nothing to do with the first amendment.

jbri 16y ago
What is a company going to do if you break an NDA? Call out a hit squad? Break your kneecaps? Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. With regards to your second issue, you're making the classic mistake of conflating a user's right to free speech with a provider's obligation to distribute that speech. Facebook has no obligation to distribute anything, and choosing not to distribute some things is not a limitation on free speech.
- uxp 16y ago
  > Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. Only by suing you, civilly, in a civilian court of law. Unless the company is the United States Military, you can't really be thrown in jail for breaking the contract on its own. One would have to willfully spread the information learned while under the NDA, with the intent of that information causing damage, like a security hole in some bank's network a hired pen-tester finds that allows an attacker to illegally obtain money.
benreesman 16y ago
an nda is a contract, it's breach makes only the privileged party liable, and even then only civilly. wrong wrong wrong wrong!

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

imkevingao 16y ago

I disagree. If first amendment is executed explicitly as what it states, we can share whatever we want on the internet. Napster wouldn't have lost in court, and you can all all sorts of videos on Youtube. Private businesses over and over again tried to use lawyers to fight cases in the courts to protect their "intellectual property" and "copyright". By all means, I believe those things should be respected, or else the business world would be corrupted. But little by little, these private businesses are limiting to what we can share and express. For example, it is illegal to lipsync on Youtube because it violates the copyrights of music label companies.