3 ms·

No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Priv

No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Private companies that control as much of information exchange as modern tech companies do are serving as a digital public square. They should not have the authority to censor legal speech. Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality.

arcticbull 7y ago
> No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Private companies that control as much of information exchange as modern tech companies do are serving as a digital public square. They should not have the authority to censor legal speech. No, it's not. Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Anything beyond that is offered by companies because they hope to make money. You can't compel YouTube to speak any more than you can compel them to stop speaking, to offer you a platform or to take one away. That's not what is guaranteed you as an American. You never had the right to publish anything you want in the newspaper and that hasn’t changed with Twitter. > Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality. Not in mainstream politics. Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies. Find my a single other "far left" politician not 100% committed to socialized medicine, anywhere on earth.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  > Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo. > Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies. As for your claim that Democrats are center-right by "world standards". The world's largest Democracy is India and Democrats would absolutely not be center-right there. Nor in most of Europe. You are likely taking a thin slice of select European countries like Sweden - who themselves are confused at the claims made by the American left about Swedish politics - and casting that as the barometer for what is left, center, or right. Pick whatever semantic label you feel comfortable with. I am talking about the Progressive Left, which is described here as "Progressive Activists": https://hiddentribes.us/profiles https://hiddentribes.us/profiles
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo. Your rights end where mine begin, is the case I'm making. By forcing me to offer you a platform you're violating my rights to free speech. A right to speak must also follow a right not to speak in the way freedom of religion must also necessarily involve a freedom from religion. You can't make me, a private entity, tell your story in your words. I certainly don't expect Breitbart to publish my feelings on how America doesn't have a "left" using my words. Should I be able to force you to publish my essay on your blog? I can't actually think of a time when "free speech" as you describe it ever existed. There's never been a country where media was required by law to publish whatever was given them. Certainly not in feudal days, not in the industrial revolution, and not today.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      Just wondering, what do you think about a company refusing to serve a gay person? Would they have the freedom of association? Even if you say that they should be free to not serve said person, this still does not make it ethical - just like if you start calling homosexuals slurs out of nowhere, just because you are free to do it, it does not mean that you won't be an asshole.
- philwelch 7y ago
  Democrats consistently defend or advocate for policies that are to the left of those in many European and Canadian countries. Some examples: * Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country * Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system * Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance. Only Canada and Taiwan have this particular type of system, with nearly every other country allowing some sort of private insurance to supplement public systems. * US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them. * Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country. That's more an artifact of America's history, IMO, as it was brought in to side-step Dredd Scott. America didn't have it until the southern states refused to allow citizenship for African Americans even after the emancipation proclamation. I don't believe in birthright citizenship because I don't think it makes sense, but I respect why Americans support it. It's just not a big problem one way or the other. Especially since y'all extract tax revenue from American citizens no matter where on earth they live. You should encourage everyone to have babies in America and fly back where they came from to help offset the deficit ;) > Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system. It's not part of the vast majority of the world's school systems. That the Swedes made it work doesn't make it left vs. right. > Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance. A few candidates are, but nobody who's become nominee for the Democrats has supported socialized medicine of any flavor, whether that's two-tier or single-payer. > US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them. I'm not sure that's a left v. right thing but more a function of the trillion dollar deficit. > Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security. I don't know enough to weigh in on this.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  In some states free speech extends to private property that serves public function like a mall or square.
- chr1 7y ago
  The question is not about what is guaranteed but about what should be guaranteed. By deciding what to show and what to hide google breaks the implicit contract made with me as a consumer: which is i gladly give up privacy, do not use an adblocker, vote against politicians who try to harm googles busyness, and in return get the information i am interested in. If they want to harm me by hiding information, i'll try to fight back so that another company could take their place. But this whole "fighting" is unproductive and harmful for the society, that's why we need to introduce fair rules to regulate such conflicts.
guelo 7y ago
You're making up a free speech principle that could not have existed before the internet. Before the internet if a random nobody wanted to broadcast a message to millions of people the best they could hope for is that a newspaper would publish their letter to the editor. The newspaper editor was ruthless in censoring whatever they felt like.

arcticbull 7y ago

> No, free speech is fundamental principle that is not tied to the government. You are conflating free speech and the first amendment as it exists in the US. Private companies that control as much of information exchange as modern tech companies do are serving as a digital public square. They should not have the authority to censor legal speech. No, it's not. Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Anything beyond that is offered by companies because they hope to make money. You can't compel YouTube to speak any more than you can compel them to stop speaking, to offer you a platform or to take one away. That's not what is guaranteed you as an American. You never had the right to publish anything you want in the newspaper and that hasn’t changed with Twitter. > Also, America definitely has a far left. Claiming that the most-left cohort of America is center-right is completely disconnected from reality. Not in mainstream politics. Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies. Find my a single other "far left" politician not 100% committed to socialized medicine, anywhere on earth.

throwawaysea 7y ago
> Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment. Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo. > Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies. As for your claim that Democrats are center-right by "world standards". The world's largest Democracy is India and Democrats would absolutely not be center-right there. Nor in most of Europe. You are likely taking a thin slice of select European countries like Sweden - who themselves are confused at the claims made by the American left about Swedish politics - and casting that as the barometer for what is left, center, or right. Pick whatever semantic label you feel comfortable with. I am talking about the Progressive Left, which is described here as "Progressive Activists": https://hiddentribes.us/profiles https://hiddentribes.us/profiles
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo. Your rights end where mine begin, is the case I'm making. By forcing me to offer you a platform you're violating my rights to free speech. A right to speak must also follow a right not to speak in the way freedom of religion must also necessarily involve a freedom from religion. You can't make me, a private entity, tell your story in your words. I certainly don't expect Breitbart to publish my feelings on how America doesn't have a "left" using my words. Should I be able to force you to publish my essay on your blog? I can't actually think of a time when "free speech" as you describe it ever existed. There's never been a country where media was required by law to publish whatever was given them. Certainly not in feudal days, not in the industrial revolution, and not today.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    Just wondering, what do you think about a company refusing to serve a gay person? Would they have the freedom of association? Even if you say that they should be free to not serve said person, this still does not make it ethical - just like if you start calling homosexuals slurs out of nowhere, just because you are free to do it, it does not mean that you won't be an asshole.
philwelch 7y ago
Democrats consistently defend or advocate for policies that are to the left of those in many European and Canadian countries. Some examples: * Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country * Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system * Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance. Only Canada and Taiwan have this particular type of system, with nearly every other country allowing some sort of private insurance to supplement public systems. * US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them. * Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country. That's more an artifact of America's history, IMO, as it was brought in to side-step Dredd Scott. America didn't have it until the southern states refused to allow citizenship for African Americans even after the emancipation proclamation. I don't believe in birthright citizenship because I don't think it makes sense, but I respect why Americans support it. It's just not a big problem one way or the other. Especially since y'all extract tax revenue from American citizens no matter where on earth they live. You should encourage everyone to have babies in America and fly back where they came from to help offset the deficit ;) > Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system. It's not part of the vast majority of the world's school systems. That the Swedes made it work doesn't make it left vs. right. > Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance. A few candidates are, but nobody who's become nominee for the Democrats has supported socialized medicine of any flavor, whether that's two-tier or single-payer. > US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them. I'm not sure that's a left v. right thing but more a function of the trillion dollar deficit. > Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security. I don't know enough to weigh in on this.
snagglegaggle 7y ago
In some states free speech extends to private property that serves public function like a mall or square.
chr1 7y ago
The question is not about what is guaranteed but about what should be guaranteed. By deciding what to show and what to hide google breaks the implicit contract made with me as a consumer: which is i gladly give up privacy, do not use an adblocker, vote against politicians who try to harm googles busyness, and in return get the information i am interested in. If they want to harm me by hiding information, i'll try to fight back so that another company could take their place. But this whole "fighting" is unproductive and harmful for the society, that's why we need to introduce fair rules to regulate such conflicts.

guelo 7y ago

You're making up a free speech principle that could not have existed before the internet. Before the internet if a random nobody wanted to broadcast a message to millions of people the best they could hope for is that a newspaper would publish their letter to the editor. The newspaper editor was ruthless in censoring whatever they felt like.