4 ms·
You're both right. Freedom of speech is important. And Freedom of Association is important. Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a
by bilbo0s 7y ago
You're both right.
Freedom of speech is important.
And Freedom of Association is important.
Everyone has a right to say what they please. And everyone has a right to associate with whoever they please.
If you don't like what someone says, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go listen to someone else, I guess? But you can't make the guy you don't like stop talking. That's attacking his freedom.
If people don't want to associate with you, well, sorry. I don't know what to tell you? Go find different friends, or don't be a douchebag, I guess? But you can't force people who don't like you to associate with you. That's attacking their freedom.
Hate speech may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
"Deplatforming", whatever that is, may be a thing, but it's entirely legitimate free expression.
Other people don't lose their rights simply because you feel they should to accommodate your belief system.
- phasnox 7y agoI completely agree. YouTube doesn't have to show content they don't like. But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher.
- guelo 7y agoWhat publisher legislation? Freedom of the press is in the same constitutional amendment as freedom of speech.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoA free press is still accountable to the law. If the press slanders somebody, or publishes illegal content they are liable for it. That is, unless they publish it as user generated content, which was a legal loophole created in the mid 90s to protect websites from liability for user submitted comments. It used to be that if you did not moderate the comments, you were not liable for them (think net neutrality), as you were simply acting as a common carrier. Since that law was passed, you are now free to moderate and editorialize user generated content in any way you see fit, as well as enjoy complete immunity from all liability that would otherwise be associated with that (think the exact opposite of net neutrality).
- bilbo0s 7y ago>But if they want to behave like a publisher, they need to be prepared to be legislated as a publisher. And that's the difference between digital and paper. What digital properties have discovered is that, regardless of whether or not they behave like a publisher, they will be held accountable for the actions of their users. (Believe me, the blue jackets are always at your door after every mass shooting. At times, they are there during the mass shooting.) So you may as well be a publisher and at least be able to make some money.
- dependenttypes 7y agoI replied to another post about this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21145050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21145050