7 ms·

The First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Leary 6y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
jayd16 6y ago
That never applied to privately owned forums.
- manigandham 6y ago
  I know, they are the clear rules that I’m referring to though.
  - komali2 6y ago
    What law did Congress pass that violates the first amendment to the Constitution? You of course acknowledge that that limitation of the first amendment is explicit - Google, not being an aspect of the government, can do whatever it pleases regarding speech.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. I'm saying that the 1st Amendment is an exemplary rule to follow for private corporations too. They didn't really have much more for a long time, until the recent addition of ever-changing and heavy-handed limitations.
    - whiddershins 6y ago
      I think you are misunderstand GP. It’s not that YouTube violates the law. It’s that the law makes a clear rule for the government. What’s good is the clarity of the rule. Other attempts at rules become too subjective, perhaps. So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. Perhaps if they had to play by those rules, they would come up with a better solution than subjective moderation by a small group of employees.
      - komali2 6y ago
        > So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. I disagree. The difference between private organizations enforcing a moral code, and the government, is strong. Ostensibly, if racists wanted their own youtube, they could make one. I see nothing of value in the further existence of the racists' mindset, but I do think it's important that there aren't thought police, for many of the same reasons that your average alt-right racist would yell about "freeze peach." Of course, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to have thought police, if there were open stretches of ungoverned land where racists could go live and start their own government. Beyond Antarctica though, that isn't the case. So for now, I think it's important to allow that separation between private and public rule.
        whiddershins 6y ago
        In many people’s view, adhering to the first amendment principles is the strong moral code. So even if it shouldn’t be mandated that a private company do that, it’s reasonable to hold the position that this would be a preferable stance for the company to take.
ardy42 6y ago
>>> The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage. >> What were those clear rules we apparently abandoned for no reason? > The First Amendment of the US Constitution. Ah yes, the good old days when every newspaper was obligated to publish every letter to the editor and every citizen was required to reproduce and distribute pamphlets put out by every nut job they ran into on the street.
- manigandham 6y ago
  First Amendment maintains freedom to express but does not state there's an obligation to be heard. You are free to ignore people as much as you want. You should not stop them from uttering those words in the first place though.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > First Amendment maintains freedom. It does not state there's an obligation. You are free to ignore people as much as you want. You should not stop them from uttering those words in the first place though. So you're fine if YouTube/Google chooses not to reproduce and distribute certain messages?
    - microcolonel 6y ago
      I think the point is that it depends on their reasons. The U.S. government imposes restrictions on broadcast content, but these restrictions are on extremely shaky ground, and they rely heavily on not venturing into viewpoint discrimination and focusing entirely on content discrimination (i.e. sexual nudity on ordinary daytime television).
    - manigandham 6y ago
      1) There's an argument that deleting the comment disallows the expression in the first place. 2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.
orblivion 6y ago
I'm mostly on your side of this debate, but I don't think this quite works because of spammers (though perhaps that's the only reason). Are spammers protected by the first amendment? I bet Gab has anti-spam measures too.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

jayd16 6y ago

That never applied to privately owned forums.

manigandham 6y ago
I know, they are the clear rules that I’m referring to though.
- komali2 6y ago
  What law did Congress pass that violates the first amendment to the Constitution? You of course acknowledge that that limitation of the first amendment is explicit - Google, not being an aspect of the government, can do whatever it pleases regarding speech.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. I'm saying that the 1st Amendment is an exemplary rule to follow for private corporations too. They didn't really have much more for a long time, until the recent addition of ever-changing and heavy-handed limitations.
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    I think you are misunderstand GP. It’s not that YouTube violates the law. It’s that the law makes a clear rule for the government. What’s good is the clarity of the rule. Other attempts at rules become too subjective, perhaps. So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. Perhaps if they had to play by those rules, they would come up with a better solution than subjective moderation by a small group of employees.
    - komali2 6y ago
      > So maybe it would be better if these companies actually followed the same rule as the government is required to, even if they aren’t currently legally obligated to. I disagree. The difference between private organizations enforcing a moral code, and the government, is strong. Ostensibly, if racists wanted their own youtube, they could make one. I see nothing of value in the further existence of the racists' mindset, but I do think it's important that there aren't thought police, for many of the same reasons that your average alt-right racist would yell about "freeze peach." Of course, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to have thought police, if there were open stretches of ungoverned land where racists could go live and start their own government. Beyond Antarctica though, that isn't the case. So for now, I think it's important to allow that separation between private and public rule.
      - whiddershins 6y ago
        In many people’s view, adhering to the first amendment principles is the strong moral code. So even if it shouldn’t be mandated that a private company do that, it’s reasonable to hold the position that this would be a preferable stance for the company to take.

ardy42 6y ago

>>> The solution is to realize "hate speech" is mostly subjective and revert back to the clear rules that we had last decade before the current political climate of gratuitous outrage. >> What were those clear rules we apparently abandoned for no reason? > The First Amendment of the US Constitution. Ah yes, the good old days when every newspaper was obligated to publish every letter to the editor and every citizen was required to reproduce and distribute pamphlets put out by every nut job they ran into on the street.

manigandham 6y ago
First Amendment maintains freedom to express but does not state there's an obligation to be heard. You are free to ignore people as much as you want. You should not stop them from uttering those words in the first place though.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > First Amendment maintains freedom. It does not state there's an obligation. You are free to ignore people as much as you want. You should not stop them from uttering those words in the first place though. So you're fine if YouTube/Google chooses not to reproduce and distribute certain messages?
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    I think the point is that it depends on their reasons. The U.S. government imposes restrictions on broadcast content, but these restrictions are on extremely shaky ground, and they rely heavily on not venturing into viewpoint discrimination and focusing entirely on content discrimination (i.e. sexual nudity on ordinary daytime television).
  - manigandham 6y ago
    1) There's an argument that deleting the comment disallows the expression in the first place. 2) Sure, private companies can do what they want. My point is that they just use the first amendment, because the current nebulous definitions aren't really working.

orblivion 6y ago

I'm mostly on your side of this debate, but I don't think this quite works because of spammers (though perhaps that's the only reason). Are spammers protected by the first amendment? I bet Gab has anti-spam measures too.