8 ms·

What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the

What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. And yes, free speech, so long as everyone in the room agrees that all of the humans in said room are human. Anything less than that, and they can get the hell out of the room, their ideas aren't worth discussing. If you don't agree with that, you are by definition a white supremacist.

iratewizard 6y ago
Wouldn't it be crazy if mega corporations could be used as tools to circumvent the first amendment? If Visa could tell Stripe who they're allowed to do business with when people in power get a little worried about what's being said? And when did the first amendment stop protecting (some) dehumanizing speech? It definitely still protects dehumanizing progressive speech. How long before we have a list of types of speech no longer covered by free speech. How long until what I'm saying now is no longer covered?
- rickbutton 6y ago
  You didn't read a single thing I said. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't. If you want to grab a megaphone and spew white-supremacist garbage from your drive way then feel free, the government cannot, and should not, stop you. However, if your neighbors refuse to interact with you, that's your own fault. The megaphone seller also has the right not to sell you the megaphone if they don't want you to spew said garbage using their megaphone. Not once in that scenario does free speech apply.
  - jturpin 6y ago
    > The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't. This feels a little hand-wavy: in the past there have been "designated free speech zones" that are of course critized organizations like the ACLU as a form of censorship and denying free speech. I don't think it's too crazy to say that speech without a platform isn't speech at all. I'm not saying we should force sites to accept content they don't like but we are going to have to address the privatization of speech sooner rather than later.
    - rickbutton 6y ago
      I agree that we will have to address the privatization of speech at some point. Ultimately I'm not sure where my opinions lie on that spectrum. However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years. Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        >>Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? Did the banned individuals ever do this? I would be shocked of Stefan Molyneux has ever been recorded advocating violence against persons of color. Or is he just collateral damage in the campaign to stop those inciting violence?
- txsoftwaredev 6y ago
  Payment companies are being used to block citizens access to firearms granted under the 2nd amendment. PayPal for example: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E2%80%99s-policy-on-transactions-that-involve-firearms-faq585?app=searchAutoComplete https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E...
rayiner 6y ago
> What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we might consider applying to other contexts even where the first amendment isn’t legally required. That view is anathema to how the first amendment has long been understood. (There is a reason the ACLU has repeatedly defended the right of neo nazis to march. And it isn’t because they’re preoccupied with the technicalities of the law. After all, the government does a lot of other unconstitutional stuff that doesn’t merit the ACLU’s involvement.) If you want to say there is a substantive difference between say Facebook and public streets, that’s fine that warrants differing treatment, that’s fine and I probably agree with you. But saying that the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations doesn’t prove anything more than it’s not literally illegal for Facebook and Twitter to do this. It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.
- klyrs 6y ago
  The first amendment is a limitation on Congress, not YouTube. The first amendment also confirms the freedom of association. On the balance, your radically expansive view of "free speech" trods deeply on the freedom of association and is unlikely to find any satisfaction in court.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    GP is not making a legal argument. Nobody is arguing that the First Amendment applies to users of products provided by Facebook. GP is talking about the principle of free speech, which is why we have the First Amendment to begin with.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      No, application of that principle is literally law. If you want that principle to be enforced in these situations, that's a violation of other rights. If you want them to act differently according to your principles, that's just a damn shame isn't it?

iratewizard 6y ago

Wouldn't it be crazy if mega corporations could be used as tools to circumvent the first amendment? If Visa could tell Stripe who they're allowed to do business with when people in power get a little worried about what's being said? And when did the first amendment stop protecting (some) dehumanizing speech? It definitely still protects dehumanizing progressive speech. How long before we have a list of types of speech no longer covered by free speech. How long until what I'm saying now is no longer covered?

rickbutton 6y ago
You didn't read a single thing I said. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't. If you want to grab a megaphone and spew white-supremacist garbage from your drive way then feel free, the government cannot, and should not, stop you. However, if your neighbors refuse to interact with you, that's your own fault. The megaphone seller also has the right not to sell you the megaphone if they don't want you to spew said garbage using their megaphone. Not once in that scenario does free speech apply.
- jturpin 6y ago
  > The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't. This feels a little hand-wavy: in the past there have been "designated free speech zones" that are of course critized organizations like the ACLU as a form of censorship and denying free speech. I don't think it's too crazy to say that speech without a platform isn't speech at all. I'm not saying we should force sites to accept content they don't like but we are going to have to address the privatization of speech sooner rather than later.
  - rickbutton 6y ago
    I agree that we will have to address the privatization of speech at some point. Ultimately I'm not sure where my opinions lie on that spectrum. However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years. Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >>Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? Did the banned individuals ever do this? I would be shocked of Stefan Molyneux has ever been recorded advocating violence against persons of color. Or is he just collateral damage in the campaign to stop those inciting violence?
txsoftwaredev 6y ago
Payment companies are being used to block citizens access to firearms granted under the 2nd amendment. PayPal for example: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E2%80%99s-policy-on-transactions-that-involve-firearms-faq585?app=searchAutoComplete https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E...

rayiner 6y ago

> What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we might consider applying to other contexts even where the first amendment isn’t legally required. That view is anathema to how the first amendment has long been understood. (There is a reason the ACLU has repeatedly defended the right of neo nazis to march. And it isn’t because they’re preoccupied with the technicalities of the law. After all, the government does a lot of other unconstitutional stuff that doesn’t merit the ACLU’s involvement.) If you want to say there is a substantive difference between say Facebook and public streets, that’s fine that warrants differing treatment, that’s fine and I probably agree with you. But saying that the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations doesn’t prove anything more than it’s not literally illegal for Facebook and Twitter to do this. It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.

klyrs 6y ago
The first amendment is a limitation on Congress, not YouTube. The first amendment also confirms the freedom of association. On the balance, your radically expansive view of "free speech" trods deeply on the freedom of association and is unlikely to find any satisfaction in court.
- bhupy 6y ago
  GP is not making a legal argument. Nobody is arguing that the First Amendment applies to users of products provided by Facebook. GP is talking about the principle of free speech, which is why we have the First Amendment to begin with.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    No, application of that principle is literally law. If you want that principle to be enforced in these situations, that's a violation of other rights. If you want them to act differently according to your principles, that's just a damn shame isn't it?