4 ms·

1. It's possible to make an argument for free speech absolutism, but such a vanishingly small number of people actually believe in it that it's not interesting.

1. It's possible to make an argument for free speech absolutism, but such a vanishingly small number of people actually believe in it that it's not interesting. If I go around insulting and cursing at all my coworkers, I'm going to be fired — and somehow, I doubt the people who are upset about James Damore's dismissal will be clamoring to defend me. Child pornography is the only law I'm aware of that prohibits taking a picture of a crime. Is it illegal to photograph someone shoplifting? Is it illegal to send someone shoplifting photos I find, even if I had nothing to do with the crime in the first place? Don't kid yourself: it's a limit on free speech that basically everyone is okay with because child pornography is universally reviled. 2. It doesn't matter when certain laws were introduced. The government making legislation forcing private citizens to disseminate speech against their will curtails their freedom of speech, full stop. I'm fine with arguments about what regulations are appropriate, just not in the guise of "platforms must do X to support free speech".

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is. There was nothing wrong with Damore’s behaviour, nobody accused him of bullying anybody. His point of view was the issue. Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos. There’s nothing inherently harmful about selling ivory, yet it’s illegal because it’s trade is the primary reason poaching elephants and rhinos happens. Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. You don’t have to compel them to do anything. Simply remove the immunity they have from be held liable for their decisions. However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  > Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is. This would be more convincing if the supposed inability to distinguish weren't regularly deployed in favor of free speech "absolutism". "Who decides what's hate speech?" is a common refrain when people call for action against hate speech. Why is the gatekeeper argument valid for racism but not for insults? > Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos. This is a non sequitur. Not all child sexual abuse is done with the intent of creating pornography, but even so it doesn't make child pornography bans any less of an abridgement of free speech. You mentioned that selling ivory is illegal, which is an example of a limit on free trade. We oppose these things because we think they're morally wrong and the benefits of prohibition outweigh the drawbacks, not because there's some weird loophole by which they're placed in an entirely different category. > Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. Maybe it's time to revisit the laws protecting them for user-generated content. I'm sympathetic to that idea. But, if you're an absolutist, it would still curtail their freedom of speech. > However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different. You misunderstand my point. I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place; they are merely trying to shift the lines of acceptable speech to be more amenable to them. That's a fine argument, and I'm happy to debate it — just not when it masquerades as "X speech must be protected because Freedom of Speech".
arduanika 7y ago
How about "platforms must be platforms in order to be legally protected as platforms"? Is that a guise, or is it cold honest look at the grip at which FAANG and their lawyers have sunk their teeth into our congress and our public discourse?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

AmericanChopper 7y ago

Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is. There was nothing wrong with Damore’s behaviour, nobody accused him of bullying anybody. His point of view was the issue. Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos. There’s nothing inherently harmful about selling ivory, yet it’s illegal because it’s trade is the primary reason poaching elephants and rhinos happens. Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. You don’t have to compel them to do anything. Simply remove the immunity they have from be held liable for their decisions. However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
> Your first point is simply a further contrivance. Allowing workplaces to regulate behaviour is not an encroachment on free speech. Allowing them to regulate thoughts and opinions arguably is. This would be more convincing if the supposed inability to distinguish weren't regularly deployed in favor of free speech "absolutism". "Who decides what's hate speech?" is a common refrain when people call for action against hate speech. Why is the gatekeeper argument valid for racism but not for insults? > Child sexual abuse is also one of the only crimes committed for the purposes of taking and distributing photos. This is a non sequitur. Not all child sexual abuse is done with the intent of creating pornography, but even so it doesn't make child pornography bans any less of an abridgement of free speech. You mentioned that selling ivory is illegal, which is an example of a limit on free trade. We oppose these things because we think they're morally wrong and the benefits of prohibition outweigh the drawbacks, not because there's some weird loophole by which they're placed in an entirely different category. > Regarding regulations, my point is simply that your assertion that correcting large companies ability to control online speech would violate their own rights to free speech, is simply false. The only reason they have that ability in the first place is because of a regulation that is without precedent, and allows them to have their cake and eat it too. Maybe it's time to revisit the laws protecting them for user-generated content. I'm sympathetic to that idea. But, if you're an absolutist, it would still curtail their freedom of speech. > However everything you and I have just said is irrelevant, because people who raise those point almost never have a genuine concern about the rights of large companies, nor the absurd idea that somehow this line of reasoning would lead to the legalisation of child pornography. The reason these points are raised is that the heart of the issue is that as a society we should value free expression, it has nothing to do with laws. Taking a direct stance against free expression is actually quite hard to get people to agree with, which is why these nonsense points must instead be raised to deflect to conversation onto something completely different. You misunderstand my point. I'm not making a slippery slope argument about child pornography. I'm saying that the OP is not making a "free speech" argument in the first place; they are merely trying to shift the lines of acceptable speech to be more amenable to them. That's a fine argument, and I'm happy to debate it — just not when it masquerades as "X speech must be protected because Freedom of Speech".

arduanika 7y ago

How about "platforms must be platforms in order to be legally protected as platforms"? Is that a guise, or is it cold honest look at the grip at which FAANG and their lawyers have sunk their teeth into our congress and our public discourse?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]