3 ms·

>Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? It comes from the body of everyone who holds s

>Freedom of speech makes sense when its my body - but who's body does the speech come out of with a corporation? It comes from the body of everyone who holds shares in the corporation. Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it, by making it impossible for those who don't have the means individually of purchasing distribution from banding together and purchasing distribution as a collective entity. Concrete example: let's say there's an evil billionaire, Lex Luthor, who's flooding the airwaves with propaganda for policies that you think are awful and evil. In a world where corporate speech was prohibited or restricted, you and your neighbors would have much less power to oppose Mr. Luthor, because you would be unable to band together and form a corporate entity (e.g. "Concerned Citizens Against Kryptonite Pollution") to oppose Mr. Luthor's advertising that kryptonite is a perfectly safe chemical which has no negative health effects.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
It cuts both ways. There are many more wealthy corporations than individuals.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Indeed! We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies? The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography. There is Vimeo and other tiny video sites, but none of them amount to the connected monetization platforms, like the way Google does with YT. Traditional monopolies don't really come into place, because as the canard here on HN is, "You can just make your own video site." In reality, that ignores all the interconnection and entrenchment. But Google doing X doesn't mean you can't. Are they a monopoly? (I believe they are.) And if so, what restrictions should they have in place to be fair? (As and aside: I am arguing this in good faith. I've seen and had friends deplatformed for infosec, hacking, and gun repair videos on YT. I've also seen similar on FB and Twitter as well, with no recourse. And on FB and Twitter both, my elected politicians show up and talk with the populace. But alas, my first comment sits at -4, for what I guess is as a 'disagree button'. )
  - tombert 7y ago
    > The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography Why draw the line at pornography? It's legal and protected speech (at least "mainstream" porn, not talking about child porn or anything like that). It's easy to say "well obviously YouTube isn't going to host that!", but it feels if we're going to compel them to platform speech they don't like, why would it stop at porn exactly? NOTE: I disagreed with your point above but I actually upvoted to offset some of the downvotes. HN really should reserve downvotes for problematic stuff or spam, not just people disagreeing where to draw the line for free speech.
- quanticle 7y ago
  That's absolutely true! However, I think restricting corporate speech is a misguided way of going about balancing the free speech rights so that the wealthy can't overwhelm the rest of us with their ability to marshal the (digital) presses. Like I pointed out in my original comment, restricting corporate speech would hurt individuals of lesser means as much, if not more, than it would hurt wealthy individuals. The real "problem" is that the US has the First Amendment, which guarantees both free association and free speech in a relatively absolutist manner. Unrestricted corporate speech is a result of the confluence of those two conditions. I can associate with whomever I please, so long as it is not for a criminal purpose, and I can say whatever I want (subject to the usual restrictions around threats and direct incitements to violence). So of course, I can gather with like-minded individuals to say things more loudly. I don't think the solution to this "problem" has anything to do with speech laws. The root cause, as you pointed out, is the massive disparities in wealth. If we addressed that, then the problem of the wealthy being able speak more goes away, without us having to weaken the First Amendment, a step I am very averse to taking.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it Billionaires own, or control, PragerU, both in funding and board seats. So they get the best of both worlds - the ability to use corporations to speak on their behalf _and_ shield them from the consequences.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

It cuts both ways. There are many more wealthy corporations than individuals.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Indeed! We, as many societies, will have to deal with the other large question: what do we do with monopolistic mega-companies? The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography. There is Vimeo and other tiny video sites, but none of them amount to the connected monetization platforms, like the way Google does with YT. Traditional monopolies don't really come into place, because as the canard here on HN is, "You can just make your own video site." In reality, that ignores all the interconnection and entrenchment. But Google doing X doesn't mean you can't. Are they a monopoly? (I believe they are.) And if so, what restrictions should they have in place to be fair? (As and aside: I am arguing this in good faith. I've seen and had friends deplatformed for infosec, hacking, and gun repair videos on YT. I've also seen similar on FB and Twitter as well, with no recourse. And on FB and Twitter both, my elected politicians show up and talk with the populace. But alas, my first comment sits at -4, for what I guess is as a 'disagree button'. )
- tombert 7y ago
  > The Youtube question has to primarily do with that they're the primary go-to for videos online that aren't related to pornography Why draw the line at pornography? It's legal and protected speech (at least "mainstream" porn, not talking about child porn or anything like that). It's easy to say "well obviously YouTube isn't going to host that!", but it feels if we're going to compel them to platform speech they don't like, why would it stop at porn exactly? NOTE: I disagreed with your point above but I actually upvoted to offset some of the downvotes. HN really should reserve downvotes for problematic stuff or spam, not just people disagreeing where to draw the line for free speech.
quanticle 7y ago
That's absolutely true! However, I think restricting corporate speech is a misguided way of going about balancing the free speech rights so that the wealthy can't overwhelm the rest of us with their ability to marshal the (digital) presses. Like I pointed out in my original comment, restricting corporate speech would hurt individuals of lesser means as much, if not more, than it would hurt wealthy individuals. The real "problem" is that the US has the First Amendment, which guarantees both free association and free speech in a relatively absolutist manner. Unrestricted corporate speech is a result of the confluence of those two conditions. I can associate with whomever I please, so long as it is not for a criminal purpose, and I can say whatever I want (subject to the usual restrictions around threats and direct incitements to violence). So of course, I can gather with like-minded individuals to say things more loudly. I don't think the solution to this "problem" has anything to do with speech laws. The root cause, as you pointed out, is the massive disparities in wealth. If we addressed that, then the problem of the wealthy being able speak more goes away, without us having to weaken the First Amendment, a step I am very averse to taking.

FireBeyond 7y ago

> Banning free speech from corporations would increase the influence of billionaires, not lessen it Billionaires own, or control, PragerU, both in funding and board seats. So they get the best of both worlds - the ability to use corporations to speak on their behalf _and_ shield them from the consequences.