3 ms·

Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against thei

Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds? I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.

splintercell 6y ago
This is a publisher vs platform issue. Platforms were given a free pass, provided they act in "good faith". Publishers weren't given a free pass. Hobby Lobby's case was not related to platform vs publisher issue.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO "Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a company that has been entirely consistent with its own content guidelines will be persistently disappointed.[...] Classical liberals and other supporters of free association and free speech should indeed be concerned when the government undertakes initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, which investigated banks doing business with firearms dealers (among others). But there is a world of difference between a government cracking down on peaceful citizens’ legal behaviour and a private company choosing to sever a business relationship.[...] But it’s a mistake to portray the ongoing debate about content moderation as one in which supporters of a ‘closed’ and a ‘free’ internet fight it out for supremacy. You’re not less free if a private company won’t host your speech, and an internet where those companies discriminate is not ‘closed’. Those who want a maximally tolerant venue for speech on the internet are welcome to build one. " https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-waging-war-free-speech https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-wag...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO CATO is right-libertarian, but more libertarian than right. Describing them simply as simply “conservative” in this context is a bit misleading.
WatchDog 6y ago
There was a supreme court case a while ago that enshrined freedom of speech rights for companies, I get the sense that many of the same people that complained about that then, are now advocating for the rights of companies.
- throwlaplace 6y ago
  Hello there false equivalence. Being upset about money as speech leading to unlimited campaign spending and supporting a company's rights manipulate their own product isn't internally contradictory.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    It actually is, since they are both about the company's right to spend it's resources at its own discretion for what is clearly core political speech at the heart of what is protected by the First Amendment. Both the left and the right are unhappy with different aspects of that, but neither wants to face up publicly to the fact that they can't have what they want without cutting the heart out of the First Amendment.
  - neetdeth 6y ago
    There is actually an equivalence here. Maybe it isn't "money as speech" but it's certainly "dominant market position as speech." In the former case, one is worried that a company's right to spend their own money and control their own communications (or hire others to communicate on their behalf, which is standard practice), will lead to outsized political influence. In the latter case, one is concerned that a company's right to control others' use of their product, because they happen to operate a platform that hosts a substantial fraction of the entire public discourse, will lead to outsized political influence. The private property defense being deployed here is so facile that only a Libertarian could actually believe it. In practice you will not be allowed, for example, to simply buy real estate at a choke point and exercise your private property rights to determine who is allowed to come and go. Public rights of way will eventually be established if you inconvenience the public enough.
bawolff 6y ago
As an aside, in canada, the first case overturning a law for being unconstitutional for violating free speech was kind of that situation, where the alberta government wanted newspapers to have to publish official "rebuttals" to previous articles, against their will. This was before canada had free speech in the constitution, but violating free speech was considered insufficiently "british", and laws had to be in the spirit of britian. Obviously none of that is relavent to the USA, but kind of seems similar

splintercell 6y ago

This is a publisher vs platform issue. Platforms were given a free pass, provided they act in "good faith". Publishers weren't given a free pass. Hobby Lobby's case was not related to platform vs publisher issue.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech? Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO "Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a company that has been entirely consistent with its own content guidelines will be persistently disappointed.[...] Classical liberals and other supporters of free association and free speech should indeed be concerned when the government undertakes initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, which investigated banks doing business with firearms dealers (among others). But there is a world of difference between a government cracking down on peaceful citizens’ legal behaviour and a private company choosing to sever a business relationship.[...] But it’s a mistake to portray the ongoing debate about content moderation as one in which supporters of a ‘closed’ and a ‘free’ internet fight it out for supremacy. You’re not less free if a private company won’t host your speech, and an internet where those companies discriminate is not ‘closed’. Those who want a maximally tolerant venue for speech on the internet are welcome to build one. " https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-waging-war-free-speech https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-wag...

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO CATO is right-libertarian, but more libertarian than right. Describing them simply as simply “conservative” in this context is a bit misleading.

WatchDog 6y ago

There was a supreme court case a while ago that enshrined freedom of speech rights for companies, I get the sense that many of the same people that complained about that then, are now advocating for the rights of companies.

throwlaplace 6y ago
Hello there false equivalence. Being upset about money as speech leading to unlimited campaign spending and supporting a company's rights manipulate their own product isn't internally contradictory.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  It actually is, since they are both about the company's right to spend it's resources at its own discretion for what is clearly core political speech at the heart of what is protected by the First Amendment. Both the left and the right are unhappy with different aspects of that, but neither wants to face up publicly to the fact that they can't have what they want without cutting the heart out of the First Amendment.
- neetdeth 6y ago
  There is actually an equivalence here. Maybe it isn't "money as speech" but it's certainly "dominant market position as speech." In the former case, one is worried that a company's right to spend their own money and control their own communications (or hire others to communicate on their behalf, which is standard practice), will lead to outsized political influence. In the latter case, one is concerned that a company's right to control others' use of their product, because they happen to operate a platform that hosts a substantial fraction of the entire public discourse, will lead to outsized political influence. The private property defense being deployed here is so facile that only a Libertarian could actually believe it. In practice you will not be allowed, for example, to simply buy real estate at a choke point and exercise your private property rights to determine who is allowed to come and go. Public rights of way will eventually be established if you inconvenience the public enough.

bawolff 6y ago

As an aside, in canada, the first case overturning a law for being unconstitutional for violating free speech was kind of that situation, where the alberta government wanted newspapers to have to publish official "rebuttals" to previous articles, against their will. This was before canada had free speech in the constitution, but violating free speech was considered insufficiently "british", and laws had to be in the spirit of britian. Obviously none of that is relavent to the USA, but kind of seems similar