3 ms·

>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make I agreed with you until this

by syshum 6y ago

>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution If society does not have respect for Free Expression (and clearly we no longer do) then the constitution can not protect that. The law, and the constitution is simply a reflection of society, at some point if society demands it the 1st amendment will be modified or abolished This is why intrusions on the concept in wider society also should be opposed not simply only opposing legal intrusions on speech For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone, open to all speech, open to all ideas. Even if in 6pt font in legalese they give them selves the authority to suppress any speech they dislike This IMO is a Deceptive Business practice, if nothing else. YT should have Clearly define, very objected rules around content that are CLEARLY displayed that every reasonable person should be able to understand, and when content is banned they should point to the exact rule that was violated in the suppression notification Finally one can disagree with YT censorship with out demanding the law come in to stop them. I am generally not in favor of government intervention in YT, I am in favor of Sec 230 Reform (or rather abolishment) and I am in favor of people speaking out agaist YT Censorship. but I would not want some kind content regulation by the government

stillbourne 6y ago
>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
- syshum 6y ago
  I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)
  - stillbourne 6y ago
    Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. > Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law) You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. The facts are that what I said is indisputably correct. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I get that you trying to say that even if there is not a grant by law that companies should enforce free expression. I am saying that no where is that guaranteed or granted. Additionally you stated: >For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone If you read the terms and services or the community guidelines you can clearly see how absurd that argument is. To argue that a platform cannot moderate its own content is to say that the owner of that platform does not have the right to its own freedom of speech. The platform as an entity run by its owners also have the right to free expression and it is their right to moderate content that is contrary to the messages then intend to promote. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense to state that the freedom of the platform to curate its message through moderation supersedes the rights of those users of the platform to use it to make statements.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Yes rating limiting here is annoying and counter productive. I have been rate limited many times. However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? >You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. Ahh I see you misunderstood what I was disagreeing about. That was not to imply you were legally incorrect. No the disagreement was conflating the clear free expression issue and censorship issue with the US 1st Amendment YT actions are censorship even if they are allowed by law. 1st amendment protect people in the US from censorship by government Censorship supporters like yourself often point to the 1st amendment as the only protection for free expression. The US Constitution is solely about creating a government and then limiting that government, it holds no power or authority outside of the that context nor should it This is why I disagree that the 1st amendment should even be mentioned in the context of private censorship. It is a red herring and a straw-man People that advocate for upholding the ideals of free expression in private contexts normally do not use 1st amendment law as the foundation. Free Expression ideals predate this document and were added because the population at large demanded their right to speak This is what I want to see a return of, the public demanding corporations uphold free expression as a virtue Instead we see cancel culture mobs demanding platforms create a safe space where their opinions, statements, and belief are beyond criticism (provided you are in a member of a protected group) because any criticism must be on its face an ism or phobic as Jonathan Haidt coined this is safetyism – the idea that people are weak and should be protected, rather than exposed, to challenges. I am firm believer in confronting "bad speech" with "good speech" not simply exiling bad speech off the public square, or in this case large mainstream platforms.
FireBeyond 6y ago
> Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution In other words, neither protected nor guaranteed? > This IMO is a Deceptive Business practice, if nothing else. YT should have Clearly define, very objected rules around content that are CLEARLY displayed that every reasonable person should be able to understand, and when content is banned they should point to the exact rule that was violated in the suppression notification Is this not clearly defined enough for you? If not, howso? https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

by syshum 6y ago

stillbourne 6y ago

>>>The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make >I agreed with you until this point. You seem to make the common miskate many "but it is private company" people make. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Would disagree with your statement https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

syshum 6y ago
I am not sure why you believe that case refutes my statements in any way. Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law)
- stillbourne 6y ago
  Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. > Clearly you did not read my statement at all. My entire post is about the different between Free Speech (a concept) and the 1st amendment (the law) You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. The facts are that what I said is indisputably correct. You can disagree with it all you like but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. I get that you trying to say that even if there is not a grant by law that companies should enforce free expression. I am saying that no where is that guaranteed or granted. Additionally you stated: >For YT and other "platforms" the issue is the fact they market themselves as open to everyone If you read the terms and services or the community guidelines you can clearly see how absurd that argument is. To argue that a platform cannot moderate its own content is to say that the owner of that platform does not have the right to its own freedom of speech. The platform as an entity run by its owners also have the right to free expression and it is their right to moderate content that is contrary to the messages then intend to promote. Furthermore, I believe it makes sense to state that the freedom of the platform to curate its message through moderation supersedes the rights of those users of the platform to use it to make statements.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>Sorry its taken me so long to reply because everyone has been downvoting me for having an opinion HN says I am posting too fast even after 2 hours of waiting... Yes rating limiting here is annoying and counter productive. I have been rate limited many times. However it is ironic that a person advocating for censorship is complaining about that. That is what you want right? >You said you agreed with everything I said up to this point: The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. Ahh I see you misunderstood what I was disagreeing about. That was not to imply you were legally incorrect. No the disagreement was conflating the clear free expression issue and censorship issue with the US 1st Amendment YT actions are censorship even if they are allowed by law. 1st amendment protect people in the US from censorship by government Censorship supporters like yourself often point to the 1st amendment as the only protection for free expression. The US Constitution is solely about creating a government and then limiting that government, it holds no power or authority outside of the that context nor should it This is why I disagree that the 1st amendment should even be mentioned in the context of private censorship. It is a red herring and a straw-man People that advocate for upholding the ideals of free expression in private contexts normally do not use 1st amendment law as the foundation. Free Expression ideals predate this document and were added because the population at large demanded their right to speak This is what I want to see a return of, the public demanding corporations uphold free expression as a virtue Instead we see cancel culture mobs demanding platforms create a safe space where their opinions, statements, and belief are beyond criticism (provided you are in a member of a protected group) because any criticism must be on its face an ism or phobic as Jonathan Haidt coined this is safetyism – the idea that people are weak and should be protected, rather than exposed, to challenges. I am firm believer in confronting "bad speech" with "good speech" not simply exiling bad speech off the public square, or in this case large mainstream platforms.

FireBeyond 6y ago

> Free Speech is not limited to the 1st amendment. The concept of Free Expression exist outside of the US Constitution In other words, neither protected nor guaranteed? > This IMO is a Deceptive Business practice, if nothing else. YT should have Clearly define, very objected rules around content that are CLEARLY displayed that every reasonable person should be able to understand, and when content is banned they should point to the exact rule that was violated in the suppression notification Is this not clearly defined enough for you? If not, howso? https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines