4 ms·

Mostly playing devil's advocate here: When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically

Mostly playing devil's advocate here: When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically talk. No third party was involved as it is with any telecommunication technology. So the resources consumed in that speech were totally your own. The only way to strictly have that equivalent in the telecommunications realm is for me to own every communication circuit between me and those who I want to communicate with. So lets say I have 10 wires coming from my house to other houses, and someone I know has 10 other wires connected to a different set of houses, that I'm not directly connected to. I can rely on my own self and build new wires (expensive) or I can work with this person to forward my communication (probably cheaper but he/she can view/hear my communication). If I want to communicate with someone else beyond my network, then a third party is carrying my speech, and we're really no longer in realm of free speech. This third party has rights and should be able to refuse to carry my speech for the same rights and reasons as me, unless entered into a contract beforehand. I think your real question is should corporations be treated as legal persons to the extent that they have the Constitutional right of speech.

gwright 7y ago
It seems pretty strange to me that individuals with the right to free speech and the right to assemble and freely associate would lose those rights if they chose the form of a "corporation" as the manner of assembly and association. So I don't think the problem is that the law treats groups of people as legal entities with substantially similar rights to the individuals. I would expect that crimes associated with speech (slander, defamation, fraudulent representations, incitement to violence, threats, etc) would be applicable to individuals and to corporations equally. I would agree that the control that a handful (relative to all corporations) of online companies wield is something quite new (historically speaking) and our laws, regulations, and even legal principles are playing catchup. We may need some original thinking to help us evolve our legal systems to meet the challenge.
- bliztw2019a 7y ago
  Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same? Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?
  - gwright 7y ago
    It is an interesting question. 1) I don't think "corporations" are picking and choosing, there is extensive legal history on this point. 2) Re: "kills someone through their negligence". I think you've abstracted too much for there to be a single answer. I gather you are talking about situations where no identifiable person lead to the death and so there is some sort of "collective" or "systemic" failure that "caused" the death. I think the particular facts matter in those cases and the result is a variety of punishments from fines, to external supervision and inspection, and even in some cases action against individuals that were connected to the faulty decision making. One size doesn't fit all in this case.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Regarding point 1, when was the last time an American corporation was put in jail?
golemiprague 7y ago
There were letters already and the constitution was covering also written speech or communication by smoke or flags or horns or whatever other means people used at those days to transfer information. There is also a difference between carrying your speech, which is something specific like transferring your letter to creating the medium itself, the very concept of postal service. A company can refuse transferring your letter but they can't ban you from using a postal service. In the case of twitter of facebook, their social network is the medium, there is no other twitter or other companies to transfer messages in the twitter sphere. They can do it in other messages sphere but I'd argue it is not the same, a letter can be sent from one home to another by anyone, a twitter message can only be sent by twitter.
MrStonedOne 7y ago
>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.
- anm89 7y ago
  Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then
  - unityByFreedom 7y ago
    > People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece. I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.
    - anm89 7y ago
      And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750. Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.
      - unityByFreedom 7y ago
        Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.
  - MrStonedOne 7y ago
    They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?
sbmassey 7y ago
The US first amendment is against Congress abridging the press as well as freedom of speech. In addition, Milton's 1644 Areopagitica is meant to be an inspiration for the first amendment, and it is all about the need for freedom of the press.

gwright 7y ago

It seems pretty strange to me that individuals with the right to free speech and the right to assemble and freely associate would lose those rights if they chose the form of a "corporation" as the manner of assembly and association. So I don't think the problem is that the law treats groups of people as legal entities with substantially similar rights to the individuals. I would expect that crimes associated with speech (slander, defamation, fraudulent representations, incitement to violence, threats, etc) would be applicable to individuals and to corporations equally. I would agree that the control that a handful (relative to all corporations) of online companies wield is something quite new (historically speaking) and our laws, regulations, and even legal principles are playing catchup. We may need some original thinking to help us evolve our legal systems to meet the challenge.

bliztw2019a 7y ago
Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same? Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?
- gwright 7y ago
  It is an interesting question. 1) I don't think "corporations" are picking and choosing, there is extensive legal history on this point. 2) Re: "kills someone through their negligence". I think you've abstracted too much for there to be a single answer. I gather you are talking about situations where no identifiable person lead to the death and so there is some sort of "collective" or "systemic" failure that "caused" the death. I think the particular facts matter in those cases and the result is a variety of punishments from fines, to external supervision and inspection, and even in some cases action against individuals that were connected to the faulty decision making. One size doesn't fit all in this case.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Regarding point 1, when was the last time an American corporation was put in jail?

golemiprague 7y ago

There were letters already and the constitution was covering also written speech or communication by smoke or flags or horns or whatever other means people used at those days to transfer information. There is also a difference between carrying your speech, which is something specific like transferring your letter to creating the medium itself, the very concept of postal service. A company can refuse transferring your letter but they can't ban you from using a postal service. In the case of twitter of facebook, their social network is the medium, there is no other twitter or other companies to transfer messages in the twitter sphere. They can do it in other messages sphere but I'd argue it is not the same, a letter can be sent from one home to another by anyone, a twitter message can only be sent by twitter.

MrStonedOne 7y ago

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

anm89 7y ago
Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  > People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece. I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.
  - anm89 7y ago
    And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750. Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.
    - unityByFreedom 7y ago
      Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.
- MrStonedOne 7y ago
  They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?

sbmassey 7y ago

The US first amendment is against Congress abridging the press as well as freedom of speech. In addition, Milton's 1644 Areopagitica is meant to be an inspiration for the first amendment, and it is all about the need for freedom of the press.