5 ms·

Those are valid points. I think those are mostly covered already under existing legal precedents for freedom of speech. I don't see any reason they should cha

Those are valid points. I think those are mostly covered already under existing legal precedents for freedom of speech. I don't see any reason they should change based on the medium. As to your point of information that can potentially do harm, who gets to be the judge of that? That seems like it can be very controversial and subjective. So far the courts have erred on the side of only ruling against things that pretty much everyone agrees upon and I think we should stick with that. Having objective criteria for limits to speech is important. Otherwise we run into scenarios where people start claiming "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". At which point ALL speech is fair game.

krapp 7y ago
> I don't see any reason they should change based on the medium. No new legal precedent has been created, nor has any existing legal precedent been changed. Youtube has always had the right to curate or ban content for any reason, and has always done so, albeit typically in service of advertisers and copyright owners. Legal precedent has never recognized "freedom of speech" to mean that no form of speech can be abridged or forbidden, rather, it has recognized that censorship is permissible under certain circumstances for the common good (laws against slander, libel, fraud, perjury, etc.) >As to your point of information that can potentially do harm, who gets to be the judge of that? That seems like it can be very controversial and subjective. Just because it can be controversial and subjective in some cases, doesn't mean it is equally controversial and subjective in all cases, nor does it follow, therefore, that no cases can reasonably be judged by any criteria, because all cases cannot be equally judged on exactly the same criteria. >Otherwise we run into scenarios where people start claiming "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". At which point ALL speech is fair game. The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it assumes humans merely process the law like algorithms, and that it will consider a statement like "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". perfectly valid merely because it is logically consistent. Even without "objective" criteria for limits to speech, someone making the argument you're presenting will be laughed out of court, both of law and public opinion. The only way the slope can be slippery is if no one had ever looked at the slope, considered that it might be slippery, and maybe added a sidewalk or some stairs or a railing or a sign or something. We as a society are already aware that the dynamics involved in something like speech can be complex, and that the potential to abuse freedom of speech exists. Feedback has already been added to the system, because the system is self-aware and self-correcting. It may not be perfect in that regard, but it's still there.
- sparkie 7y ago
  > Just because it can be controversial and subjective in some cases, doesn't mean it is equally controversial and subjective in all cases, nor does it follow, therefore, that no cases can reasonably be judged by any criteria, because all cases cannot be equally judged on exactly the same criteria. You dodged GPs question. Who gets to be the judge? We already have a system in place which has answered that question - one which aims to prevent abuse of the power, give every party an opportunity to make their case and be judged by a jury of their peers. All you are asking for is for this to be circumvented.
  - laumars 7y ago
    A lot of people cry "freedom of speech" when it comes to private platforms (which actually US law doesn't apply in that case but lets shelve that point for now) but the argument could also be tipped on its head: If the press have the editorial freedom to chose which of their reporters articles they publish -- be it factual, opinion, or even outright biased -- then why shouldn't other private platforms have the same editorial freedom? The "who" in your "who gets to judge?" then becomes a simple answer: the platform owners. The uncomfortable part is that some platforms have a larger impression on people than others. But short of government intervention -- which is a hugely unpopular option in America -- that's just the markets working the way you guys want your markets to work (ie given the psychology of confirmation bias, if platforms were to focus on unpopular view points their viewership would diminish). That's the paradoxical part of all this. The same freedoms are being used in both cases but in one instance it enforces principles you believe in and in the other instance it erodes those principles. But you cannot have one instance without having both.
    - julybuffalo 7y ago
      The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander someone over the phone and they send the audio to the recipient. Why shouldn't platforms be stripped of their legal protections (and some effectively destroyed) if they are exercising editorial discretion? Why shouldn't YouTube be responsible for the videos that they do allow/have approved? If someone doesn't think that YouTube should be accountable for content, then should a newspaper be accountable? Should a person be accountable for his content?

krapp 7y ago

> I don't see any reason they should change based on the medium. No new legal precedent has been created, nor has any existing legal precedent been changed. Youtube has always had the right to curate or ban content for any reason, and has always done so, albeit typically in service of advertisers and copyright owners. Legal precedent has never recognized "freedom of speech" to mean that no form of speech can be abridged or forbidden, rather, it has recognized that censorship is permissible under certain circumstances for the common good (laws against slander, libel, fraud, perjury, etc.) >As to your point of information that can potentially do harm, who gets to be the judge of that? That seems like it can be very controversial and subjective. Just because it can be controversial and subjective in some cases, doesn't mean it is equally controversial and subjective in all cases, nor does it follow, therefore, that no cases can reasonably be judged by any criteria, because all cases cannot be equally judged on exactly the same criteria. >Otherwise we run into scenarios where people start claiming "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". At which point ALL speech is fair game. The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it assumes humans merely process the law like algorithms, and that it will consider a statement like "your opinions and words I don't agree with are considered violence against me". perfectly valid merely because it is logically consistent. Even without "objective" criteria for limits to speech, someone making the argument you're presenting will be laughed out of court, both of law and public opinion. The only way the slope can be slippery is if no one had ever looked at the slope, considered that it might be slippery, and maybe added a sidewalk or some stairs or a railing or a sign or something. We as a society are already aware that the dynamics involved in something like speech can be complex, and that the potential to abuse freedom of speech exists. Feedback has already been added to the system, because the system is self-aware and self-correcting. It may not be perfect in that regard, but it's still there.

sparkie 7y ago
> Just because it can be controversial and subjective in some cases, doesn't mean it is equally controversial and subjective in all cases, nor does it follow, therefore, that no cases can reasonably be judged by any criteria, because all cases cannot be equally judged on exactly the same criteria. You dodged GPs question. Who gets to be the judge? We already have a system in place which has answered that question - one which aims to prevent abuse of the power, give every party an opportunity to make their case and be judged by a jury of their peers. All you are asking for is for this to be circumvented.
- laumars 7y ago
  A lot of people cry "freedom of speech" when it comes to private platforms (which actually US law doesn't apply in that case but lets shelve that point for now) but the argument could also be tipped on its head: If the press have the editorial freedom to chose which of their reporters articles they publish -- be it factual, opinion, or even outright biased -- then why shouldn't other private platforms have the same editorial freedom? The "who" in your "who gets to judge?" then becomes a simple answer: the platform owners. The uncomfortable part is that some platforms have a larger impression on people than others. But short of government intervention -- which is a hugely unpopular option in America -- that's just the markets working the way you guys want your markets to work (ie given the psychology of confirmation bias, if platforms were to focus on unpopular view points their viewership would diminish). That's the paradoxical part of all this. The same freedoms are being used in both cases but in one instance it enforces principles you believe in and in the other instance it erodes those principles. But you cannot have one instance without having both.
  - julybuffalo 7y ago
    The press you mention is legally accountable for its content. Platforms have protections. Telephone companies, for example, aren't responsible if you slander someone over the phone and they send the audio to the recipient. Why shouldn't platforms be stripped of their legal protections (and some effectively destroyed) if they are exercising editorial discretion? Why shouldn't YouTube be responsible for the videos that they do allow/have approved? If someone doesn't think that YouTube should be accountable for content, then should a newspaper be accountable? Should a person be accountable for his content?