6 ms·

You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude

by rlt 6y ago

You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

ashtonkem 6y ago
What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?
- jshevek 6y ago
  In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    That’s an interesting thing to do, but sans a means of enforcement it seems kind of pointless to me.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      This argument could have been used to discourage people from discussing the need to make any ethical improvements in our society, including, for example, ending slavery. The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.
  - wwweston 6y ago
    It's good work to ask how things could be better than they are, but setting aside the law may not be great way of approaching the issue because: * a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals. * any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.
    - jshevek 6y ago
      Did you post this comment in reply to my comment in isolation, or as a reply to my comment in the context of the previous comments in the exchange, starting with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech." and ending with "What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?
- rlt 6y ago
  Yes. The First Amendment is one specific protection of freedom of speech. It does not equal freedom speech, which is a general concept that private companies can also uphold (but I think everyone here acknowledges they are not legally obligated to)
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I think that the government coming in and telling companies what they can and cannot do with their private platforms is entirely contrary to freedom of speech. What would be better is a wider array of communication platforms, for which there is a entirely different set of regulatory tools available.
  - toofy 6y ago
    Not only are they not legally obligated to uphold free speech, very few (almost zero) companies allow anyone to say whatever they wish whenever they wish. Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      > Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street. I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine. That's over specific. All bars (even the worst ones I could find) usually have unspoken rules about what can be discussed, until you start to talk about those subjects (eg drug dealing, weapons dealing, planned violence, etc) openly. Of course you can't effectively restrict communication between individuals, but that's also not the issue.
        Fjolsvith 6y ago

by rlt 6y ago

You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

ashtonkem 6y ago

What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?

jshevek 6y ago
In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  That’s an interesting thing to do, but sans a means of enforcement it seems kind of pointless to me.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    This argument could have been used to discourage people from discussing the need to make any ethical improvements in our society, including, for example, ending slavery. The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.
- wwweston 6y ago
  It's good work to ask how things could be better than they are, but setting aside the law may not be great way of approaching the issue because: * a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals. * any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    Did you post this comment in reply to my comment in isolation, or as a reply to my comment in the context of the previous comments in the exchange, starting with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech." and ending with "What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?
rlt 6y ago
Yes. The First Amendment is one specific protection of freedom of speech. It does not equal freedom speech, which is a general concept that private companies can also uphold (but I think everyone here acknowledges they are not legally obligated to)
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I think that the government coming in and telling companies what they can and cannot do with their private platforms is entirely contrary to freedom of speech. What would be better is a wider array of communication platforms, for which there is a entirely different set of regulatory tools available.
- toofy 6y ago
  Not only are they not legally obligated to uphold free speech, very few (almost zero) companies allow anyone to say whatever they wish whenever they wish. Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street. I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine. That's over specific. All bars (even the worst ones I could find) usually have unspoken rules about what can be discussed, until you start to talk about those subjects (eg drug dealing, weapons dealing, planned violence, etc) openly. Of course you can't effectively restrict communication between individuals, but that's also not the issue.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago