5 ms·

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exer

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution: "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." Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. This is not censorship. Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything. They are just denying the use of their platform to spread absurd anti-semitic ideas that have no place in an educated and civilized society. I have said this before in HN, but I'll say it again. There seems to be this idea that freedom of speech comes with an automatic and superseding right to distribution. That's 100% wrong. You can believe whatever idiotic ideas you want but you can't claim freedom of speech to force other people to give you a platform for your beliefs.

jdpedrie 6y ago
This is silly. Of course Facebook's censorship is censorship. It is true that they are not bound by the first amendment in the same way in which Congress (and via incorporation the states) are bound, but freedom of speech is a concept which exists independent of the first amendment guarantee to its enjoyment.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  In many countries Holocaust Denial it's a crime. The world it's not only the US. So let's start there. If you want to call this censorship that's within your rights of course (your freedom of speech right, nonetheless). Either way, I think people have also a wrong idea of what censorship is. If I tell you can't take a shit in the middle of my living room and you claim that I'm censoring you, then maybe you should reconsider your logic and definition of censoring. This is basically the same.
  - jdpedrie 6y ago
    You're missing the point. "Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech. Whether it's legal censorship or illegal or even government mandated, it's still censorship. You're trying to change the meaning of well-defined terms because you're uncomfortable with what the implications of them might be. If you're pro-censorship, just say so, don't try to change what freedom of speech means. There's no one who would advocate complete and total freedom of speech in every arena. Whether it's social, legal or self censorship, the question isn't about whether a line exists, it's where we place it.
    - whoisjuan 6y ago
      Well I already said it. I say that Facebook is within their rights (by your definition) to "censor" this. Personally I don't consider this censorship. What else do you want me to say? You're talking about this like if it was a science where 2+2=4, and that's far from reality. That's why I provided an alternate angle, showing that in other countries Holocaust Denial is a crime. I'm not changing what "freedom of speech means". I'm telling you that freedom of speech doesn't come with extra rights to give you the ability to disperse your thoughts and Facebook is also well within its own freedom of speech rights (as a Corporate personhood) to enforce whatever content rules they want. Either way, I'm not even trying to argue here. You believe this is censorship. Fine. I respect that and really don't see that as an irrational thought at all. There's some sound reasoning around your idea that this is censorship. I just think that trying to create blanket definitions for "censorship" or "freedom of speech" is an easy escape to allow people to behave like shit. That's what I think. Totally a personal opinion, though.
- remram 6y ago
  Wouldn't forcing Facebook, a private company, to promote and convey any and all content equally, even content that they fundamentally disagree with, be restricting their own freedom of speech? Why should they be forced to distribute such messages?
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    This is exactly the reason non governmental entities should be allowed to do as they please within the confines of Constitutionality. If they aren't allowed that freedom, then they aren't free, and you have a bigger problem. In this sense, censorship is free speech, as you point out. But it's still a form of censorship. It's just censorship that should be allowed and encouraged like any other form of speech or expression by non governmental entities. EDIT: (At least, that's how it works in the US. Other nations, other laws.)
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Wouldn't forcing Facebook Feel free to argue that Facebook should be allowed to censor others. But it is still censorship. It is perfectly possible for someone to both think that Facebooks actions should be allowed, and are also censorship at the same time.
    - remram 6y ago
      If you are yelling or distributing pamphlets in my backyard and I don't like the message, and I ask you to move, I'm not sure you would refer to it as "censorship".
      - stale2002 6y ago
        Sure, that would be you censoring certain types of speech on your property. It would have a pretty small effect on other people's ability to engage in speech. But it is an effect none the less. If you owned a huge amount of property, though, then this would be a larger amount of censorship.
        6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nickysielicki 6y ago
Freedom of speech is a principle that our constitution enshrines. It exists independently of our constitution and government. The fact that the government isn’t violating an obligation to not restrict free speech does not mean that the principle isn’t being violated by other parties. XKCD was wrong.
bjourne 6y ago
You are being obtuse. Following your definition, freedom of speech wouldn't exist in anywhere other than in the U.S. because no other country has a constitution with that exact same wording! lki876 is clearly referring to a philosophical principle, not whether Facebook's policies violates the U.S. constitution. There was probably some law legalizing Trump's murder of Qasem Soleimani too, doesn't mean it wasn't also a dick move.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
devthrowawy 6y ago
No one is saying that this is un-constitutional, because the gov would need to be involved for that to be the case. But it is still censorship.
_greim_ 6y ago
> Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. Some people are better at compartmentalizing than others. They can hold freedom of speech as it applies to the government in one thought-bucket, while holding corporate-enforced limits on their ability to say whatever they want in another. But others can't (or won't) compartmentalize. To them, the whole freedom from the government versus freedom from private corporations distinction seems arbitrary and distracting, especially in the US, where many government roles have been subsumed by private corporations. I'm not saying your point is invalid, just trying to gain some perspective on the issue. Personally, I'm a compartmentalizer so I see your point.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Yes. This is very true, especially in the US. Many people tend to have this perspective that their constitutional rights have superseding power over any private hold rule or even can give you an avenue to deny rights to others. I consider this primarily a failure of the educational system.
- freen 6y ago
  Those who cannot compartmentalize seem to think it would be a violation of “free speech” for me to kick nazis out of my dinner party, for hacker news to ban trolls, etc. In many ways, the unified absolute freedom of speech camp, no one should ever prevent nazis from posting on hacker news because it is a limitation on the nazis “freedom of speech” are arguing for a substantially more invasive understanding of freedom of speech: I am required to support, fund, enable and amplify speech that I find abhorrent and destructive. By that logic, deleting spam from my blog comment section violates their conception of “freedom of speech”.
  - geodel 6y ago
    Or you can take your rants to your own little website and leave folks here to discuss their "racist and destructive" ideas. By your own argument this should not be any impediment on free speech.
monksy 6y ago
> Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. This is not censorship. It is until it isn't. The big question here is: Is it a common carrier in which people use it, or is it responsible for content on there? When they start sticking their hand in it to determine what is and isn't acceptible content on there, imo they violate the claim that they're a common platform/being a common carrier.
neonate 6y ago
That's a law about free speech. It doesn't define the concept, it presupposes it. Certainly it doesn't imply that no other form of free speech exists. (I'm not arguing that Facebook shouldn't remove holocaust denial. I just disagree with this new and extremely narrow interpretation of "free speech" that has popped up like mushrooms everywhere and is being used to curtail free speech in many social and business contexts.)
betwixthewires 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Also reference the 14th amendment. Prior to it's ratification the bill of rights was construed only to apply to the federal government. It's ratification brought application of the bill of rights to the states, and then to private entities.
lki876 6y ago
You're confounding "freedom of speech" with "freedom of speech as defined in the [US] constitution". > Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything. That's literally exactly what censorship is...........
raxxorrax 6y ago
This argument is brought forward often. I just post the Wikipedia article that is actually (still) quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech ... in the vain hope someone reads the first one or two sentences. > They are not censoring anything. Technically untrue. It isn't that much fun to defend holocaust denial. Maybe even illegal in my country, I don't know the details. But you do what you have to do. Ignorance is still the most potent weapon of facists.

jdpedrie 6y ago

This is silly. Of course Facebook's censorship is censorship. It is true that they are not bound by the first amendment in the same way in which Congress (and via incorporation the states) are bound, but freedom of speech is a concept which exists independent of the first amendment guarantee to its enjoyment.

whoisjuan 6y ago
In many countries Holocaust Denial it's a crime. The world it's not only the US. So let's start there. If you want to call this censorship that's within your rights of course (your freedom of speech right, nonetheless). Either way, I think people have also a wrong idea of what censorship is. If I tell you can't take a shit in the middle of my living room and you claim that I'm censoring you, then maybe you should reconsider your logic and definition of censoring. This is basically the same.
- jdpedrie 6y ago
  You're missing the point. "Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech. Whether it's legal censorship or illegal or even government mandated, it's still censorship. You're trying to change the meaning of well-defined terms because you're uncomfortable with what the implications of them might be. If you're pro-censorship, just say so, don't try to change what freedom of speech means. There's no one who would advocate complete and total freedom of speech in every arena. Whether it's social, legal or self censorship, the question isn't about whether a line exists, it's where we place it.
  - whoisjuan 6y ago
    Well I already said it. I say that Facebook is within their rights (by your definition) to "censor" this. Personally I don't consider this censorship. What else do you want me to say? You're talking about this like if it was a science where 2+2=4, and that's far from reality. That's why I provided an alternate angle, showing that in other countries Holocaust Denial is a crime. I'm not changing what "freedom of speech means". I'm telling you that freedom of speech doesn't come with extra rights to give you the ability to disperse your thoughts and Facebook is also well within its own freedom of speech rights (as a Corporate personhood) to enforce whatever content rules they want. Either way, I'm not even trying to argue here. You believe this is censorship. Fine. I respect that and really don't see that as an irrational thought at all. There's some sound reasoning around your idea that this is censorship. I just think that trying to create blanket definitions for "censorship" or "freedom of speech" is an easy escape to allow people to behave like shit. That's what I think. Totally a personal opinion, though.
remram 6y ago
Wouldn't forcing Facebook, a private company, to promote and convey any and all content equally, even content that they fundamentally disagree with, be restricting their own freedom of speech? Why should they be forced to distribute such messages?
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  This is exactly the reason non governmental entities should be allowed to do as they please within the confines of Constitutionality. If they aren't allowed that freedom, then they aren't free, and you have a bigger problem. In this sense, censorship is free speech, as you point out. But it's still a form of censorship. It's just censorship that should be allowed and encouraged like any other form of speech or expression by non governmental entities. EDIT: (At least, that's how it works in the US. Other nations, other laws.)
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Wouldn't forcing Facebook Feel free to argue that Facebook should be allowed to censor others. But it is still censorship. It is perfectly possible for someone to both think that Facebooks actions should be allowed, and are also censorship at the same time.
  - remram 6y ago
    If you are yelling or distributing pamphlets in my backyard and I don't like the message, and I ask you to move, I'm not sure you would refer to it as "censorship".
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Sure, that would be you censoring certain types of speech on your property. It would have a pretty small effect on other people's ability to engage in speech. But it is an effect none the less. If you owned a huge amount of property, though, then this would be a larger amount of censorship.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nickysielicki 6y ago

Freedom of speech is a principle that our constitution enshrines. It exists independently of our constitution and government. The fact that the government isn’t violating an obligation to not restrict free speech does not mean that the principle isn’t being violated by other parties. XKCD was wrong.

bjourne 6y ago

You are being obtuse. Following your definition, freedom of speech wouldn't exist in anywhere other than in the U.S. because no other country has a constitution with that exact same wording! lki876 is clearly referring to a philosophical principle, not whether Facebook's policies violates the U.S. constitution. There was probably some law legalizing Trump's murder of Qasem Soleimani too, doesn't mean it wasn't also a dick move.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

devthrowawy 6y ago

No one is saying that this is un-constitutional, because the gov would need to be involved for that to be the case. But it is still censorship.

_greim_ 6y ago

> Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. Some people are better at compartmentalizing than others. They can hold freedom of speech as it applies to the government in one thought-bucket, while holding corporate-enforced limits on their ability to say whatever they want in another. But others can't (or won't) compartmentalize. To them, the whole freedom from the government versus freedom from private corporations distinction seems arbitrary and distracting, especially in the US, where many government roles have been subsumed by private corporations. I'm not saying your point is invalid, just trying to gain some perspective on the issue. Personally, I'm a compartmentalizer so I see your point.

whoisjuan 6y ago
Yes. This is very true, especially in the US. Many people tend to have this perspective that their constitutional rights have superseding power over any private hold rule or even can give you an avenue to deny rights to others. I consider this primarily a failure of the educational system.
freen 6y ago
Those who cannot compartmentalize seem to think it would be a violation of “free speech” for me to kick nazis out of my dinner party, for hacker news to ban trolls, etc. In many ways, the unified absolute freedom of speech camp, no one should ever prevent nazis from posting on hacker news because it is a limitation on the nazis “freedom of speech” are arguing for a substantially more invasive understanding of freedom of speech: I am required to support, fund, enable and amplify speech that I find abhorrent and destructive. By that logic, deleting spam from my blog comment section violates their conception of “freedom of speech”.
- geodel 6y ago
  Or you can take your rants to your own little website and leave folks here to discuss their "racist and destructive" ideas. By your own argument this should not be any impediment on free speech.

monksy 6y ago

> Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. This is not censorship. It is until it isn't. The big question here is: Is it a common carrier in which people use it, or is it responsible for content on there? When they start sticking their hand in it to determine what is and isn't acceptible content on there, imo they violate the claim that they're a common platform/being a common carrier.

neonate 6y ago

That's a law about free speech. It doesn't define the concept, it presupposes it. Certainly it doesn't imply that no other form of free speech exists. (I'm not arguing that Facebook shouldn't remove holocaust denial. I just disagree with this new and extremely narrow interpretation of "free speech" that has popped up like mushrooms everywhere and is being used to curtail free speech in many social and business contexts.)

betwixthewires 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama Also reference the 14th amendment. Prior to it's ratification the bill of rights was construed only to apply to the federal government. It's ratification brought application of the bill of rights to the states, and then to private entities.

lki876 6y ago

You're confounding "freedom of speech" with "freedom of speech as defined in the [US] constitution". > Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything. That's literally exactly what censorship is...........

raxxorrax 6y ago

This argument is brought forward often. I just post the Wikipedia article that is actually (still) quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech ... in the vain hope someone reads the first one or two sentences. > They are not censoring anything. Technically untrue. It isn't that much fun to defend holocaust denial. Maybe even illegal in my country, I don't know the details. But you do what you have to do. Ignorance is still the most potent weapon of facists.