4 ms·

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 v

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]

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]