3 ms·

> any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech I don't follow what you're trying to say here? A priva

by Reelin 7y ago

> any company working "in favor" of the government but not "for it" could very well restrict free speech I don't follow what you're trying to say here? A private company can do as it pleases because an employee's speech could conflict with its business interests. In some cases, other federal, state, or local laws offer additional protections to the employee (ex California provides very strong protections for employee political speech). The idea is that the government isn't allowed to restrict your speech, but it also can't force you to interact with someone you don't want to. If you say things that offend people, the consequences are your problem to deal with.

dathinab 7y ago
Facebook could decide that LGBTQ+ people are offensive and strongly restrict theire free speech even for non LGBTQ+ topics (sure there are other regulations to prevent this, but they have much less tooth). That you have to handle consequences when you insult someone or you IDK openly call for the murder of all ... People that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into.
- Reelin 7y ago
  > that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into I don't think you can avoid it though. What if I personally choose not to associate with people I view as activists? Surely that's my right? What if I start a small business that's very up front about refusing clients who are activists? What if Facebook were to ban the accounts of known activists? Who gets to set the criteria that determine if a topic or group is protected, what constitutes an insult, etc? Who do these rules apply to - only the largest of businesses or even to individuals? How do you balance such rules against the freedom to choose not to associate with someone? How do you avoid situations in which such rules would constitute a form of forced speech? If you tell Facebook (using your example) that they have to allow speech on their own platform that they don't agree with, then you had better have a very clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous set of legal tests to apply because you're opening an absolutely enormous can of worms. Worse, Facebook is the _easy_ case because you can construct a reasonably convincing argument that the large public cloud providers have intentionally made themselves a sort of public commons (albeit a strange privately owned and operated one). As you look at progressively smaller businesses that serve fewer customers and have more competition, such an argument begins to break down. I can see the reasoning that a forum (ex Reddit) or web host (ex Cloudflare) is a platform provider and should be required to be neutral, similar to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. But I can also see legitimate concerns arising if (for example) YouTube was forced to host videos that they felt tarnished their brand or (for example) Reddit had been legally prevented from banning /r/watchpeopledie.

by Reelin 7y ago

dathinab 7y ago

Facebook could decide that LGBTQ+ people are offensive and strongly restrict theire free speech even for non LGBTQ+ topics (sure there are other regulations to prevent this, but they have much less tooth). That you have to handle consequences when you insult someone or you IDK openly call for the murder of all ... People that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into.

Reelin 7y ago
> that's a different matter I didn't intend to go into I don't think you can avoid it though. What if I personally choose not to associate with people I view as activists? Surely that's my right? What if I start a small business that's very up front about refusing clients who are activists? What if Facebook were to ban the accounts of known activists? Who gets to set the criteria that determine if a topic or group is protected, what constitutes an insult, etc? Who do these rules apply to - only the largest of businesses or even to individuals? How do you balance such rules against the freedom to choose not to associate with someone? How do you avoid situations in which such rules would constitute a form of forced speech? If you tell Facebook (using your example) that they have to allow speech on their own platform that they don't agree with, then you had better have a very clear, comprehensive, and unambiguous set of legal tests to apply because you're opening an absolutely enormous can of worms. Worse, Facebook is the _easy_ case because you can construct a reasonably convincing argument that the large public cloud providers have intentionally made themselves a sort of public commons (albeit a strange privately owned and operated one). As you look at progressively smaller businesses that serve fewer customers and have more competition, such an argument begins to break down. I can see the reasoning that a forum (ex Reddit) or web host (ex Cloudflare) is a platform provider and should be required to be neutral, similar to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. But I can also see legitimate concerns arising if (for example) YouTube was forced to host videos that they felt tarnished their brand or (for example) Reddit had been legally prevented from banning /r/watchpeopledie.