3 ms·

> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If t

by cheph 6y ago

> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

floatingatoll 6y ago
The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.
- throwaway7851 6y ago
  First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The first amendment does not provide blanket protection from law enforcement, however much some US citizens wish otherwise.
    - throwaway7851 6y ago
      The first amendment also isn't as limited as you implied, no matter how much you might wish it. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the danger, not because the theater is privately owned. The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    Free speech protects your right to not be arrested or otherwise punished by GOVERNMENT institutions for things you say or actions classified as speech. But it does not protect speech that is intended and likely to cause violence or intended as threat or intimidation. As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms. With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling. Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.
    - throwaway7851 6y ago
      Google sent user data to the cops, who are a government institution. The discussion is about whether or not they were right to do so, and everyone agrees that they were. Neither you or the person I replied to seem to understand that. To repeat: this is a discussion about reporting comments to government authorities, not simply removing them from the platform they own. Is it your intention to support companies turning over user data to the police for any and all speech they don't like?
- cheph 6y ago
  If you murder someone on Google property it is still murder, similarly incitement on Google property it is still incitement. Where you do it does not make it a non crime.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    I should have been more clear: We're discussing Google's digital properties, upon which murder is impossible to commit, as murder requires a corporeal — non-digital — form. Can you restate your reply in those terms? It's hard to make sense of what you're saying here.

by cheph 6y ago

floatingatoll 6y ago

The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.

throwaway7851 6y ago
First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The first amendment does not provide blanket protection from law enforcement, however much some US citizens wish otherwise.
  - throwaway7851 6y ago
    The first amendment also isn't as limited as you implied, no matter how much you might wish it. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected because of the danger, not because the theater is privately owned. The topic of discussion is comments that fall out of first amendment protection because of their content, not because of where they were posted. The authoritarian knee-jerk "first amendment doesn't apply to private companies" argument is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  Free speech protects your right to not be arrested or otherwise punished by GOVERNMENT institutions for things you say or actions classified as speech. But it does not protect speech that is intended and likely to cause violence or intended as threat or intimidation. As ruled in Manhattan Community Access Corp et al vs Halleck et al the Supreme Court's CONSERVATIVE majority ruled that: "The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech." On this basis, Google has a right to remove or report content to authorities as it chooses: Conservatives decided that free speech protections do not apply to private platforms. With regards to police enforcement: in Brandenburg v Ohio the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Comments advocating for violence and murder ARE NOT PROTECTED FREE SPEECH, per this ruling. Similarly the ruling of Virginia v Black held that while some forms of hate speech may be protected on their own, that protection ends when the speech is intended to intimidate. To quote: "a state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." TL;DR: Free speech rights do not protect speech on privately owned platforms, and you can still be arrested for that speech alone if it incites violence or acts to intimidate others.
  - throwaway7851 6y ago
    Google sent user data to the cops, who are a government institution. The discussion is about whether or not they were right to do so, and everyone agrees that they were. Neither you or the person I replied to seem to understand that. To repeat: this is a discussion about reporting comments to government authorities, not simply removing them from the platform they own. Is it your intention to support companies turning over user data to the police for any and all speech they don't like?
cheph 6y ago
If you murder someone on Google property it is still murder, similarly incitement on Google property it is still incitement. Where you do it does not make it a non crime.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  I should have been more clear: We're discussing Google's digital properties, upon which murder is impossible to commit, as murder requires a corporeal — non-digital — form. Can you restate your reply in those terms? It's hard to make sense of what you're saying here.