5 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_C... A more recent and m

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_Corp._v._Halleck https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Community_Access_C... A more recent and more relevant precedent that cuts against your argument. Btw I would be sad to see the first repealed, but I'm happy enough with Google and Facebook's moderation powers. So now you've met one person who has a principled commitment to free speech who thinks that Google and facebook should be allowed to moderate content.

quotemstr 6y ago
I know the SCOTUS has walked back that precedent --- I said that I liked the reasoning in Marsh, not that I think it's still in force and not watered down. As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? What's the point of the first amendment protections free speech protections when it's a dead letter from the perspective of message dissemination?
- RuggedPineapple 6y ago
  > As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) and you can decide who you collaborate with (freedom of association). That's it. End of story. There's no thought or word put towards other people having to play nice with you about what you say.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    > The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? What is the principle that motivated the restriction you described? The concept of free speech is a lot bigger than the government.
    - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
      The motivation was that the government of the day did arrest critics and made certain speech illegal, depending on its mood. And no, it's not deeper then that. The constitution is a dry document pertaining solely to organizing a government. It's the entire purpose of the document.
      - quotemstr 6y ago
        And what was wrong with arresting critics and making speech illegal? Thinking these things is bad is just some random whim the founders had with no additional thinking backing it up? One day, people are going to see private censorship from social media companies as the same kind of antiquated barbarism. "Of course," they will say, "a few unelected managers in tech companies shouldn't get to control the public conversation". The ability to speak without getting arrested in important because it's only by examining ideas that we separate the good ones from the bad ones. When social media companies make it impossible to have real conversations about certain ideas, they damage the ability of society to make good decisions.
        RuggedPineapple 6y ago
        You're diving of some deep ends and speaking concretely as if you have the answer about what the future humans will be thinking. Pretty sure I'm being Poe'd here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  IMO the purpose of free (political) speech is to prevent the people you are speaking from throwing you in jail for speaking about them. I could go into the various details of why I think moderation on internet platforms does not cause the same concerns, but you can probably fill in the blanks. If you can't, let me know and I can write a longer comment.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    > IMO the purpose of free (political) speech is to prevent the people you are speaking from throwing you in jail for speaking about them Go deeper. Why is it bad that the king be able to throw you in jail for insulting the king? You could make an argument that insulting the king undermines faith in the state and should therefore be punished. You can come up with an argument for anything. Why is it that we should reject this argument for king-insulting being a crime?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      We need to be able to speak negatively about the king in order to change him. Also people like to be able to talk and don't want to be in jail for doing so.
      - quotemstr 6y ago
        Sure. We need to be able to speak negatively about our elites to change them. For example, we need to call them out when they're lying. The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. The purpose of promoting free speech is to ensure that the ideas we adopt as truth are well tested against other ideas and correspond to some degree to reality. Mass social media censorship breaks the marketplace of ideas.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        > The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. That is not apparently true? Generally speaking the disinformation stuff is to prevent blatantly false conspiracy theories from being circulated widely? In any case, you're still free to talk about those ideas, you just don't necessarily have access to the level of circulation you might otherwise. Historically, this seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constitution was written, if you had a fringe idea, you could shout it on the streetcorner and tell all your friends in person, but it was time-consuming work. Unless you had access to capital, you were probably not going to have your ideas printed and spread beyond what you personally were able to accomplish via direct communication. I don't think the founders had it as a goal that every idea would be maximally disseminated. That's not what free speech was about, and, for me, that's not what free speech ought to be about.

quotemstr 6y ago

I know the SCOTUS has walked back that precedent --- I said that I liked the reasoning in Marsh, not that I think it's still in force and not watered down. As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? What's the point of the first amendment protections free speech protections when it's a dead letter from the perspective of message dissemination?

RuggedPineapple 6y ago
> As for your support for Google and Facebook moderation: don't you think support for the purpose of free speech requires that people be capable of exercising that freedom at a practical level? The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) and you can decide who you collaborate with (freedom of association). That's it. End of story. There's no thought or word put towards other people having to play nice with you about what you say.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  > The purpose of the first amendment is that the government can't throw you in jail for speech Why shouldn't the government be able to do that? What is the principle that motivated the restriction you described? The concept of free speech is a lot bigger than the government.
  - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
    The motivation was that the government of the day did arrest critics and made certain speech illegal, depending on its mood. And no, it's not deeper then that. The constitution is a dry document pertaining solely to organizing a government. It's the entire purpose of the document.
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      And what was wrong with arresting critics and making speech illegal? Thinking these things is bad is just some random whim the founders had with no additional thinking backing it up? One day, people are going to see private censorship from social media companies as the same kind of antiquated barbarism. "Of course," they will say, "a few unelected managers in tech companies shouldn't get to control the public conversation". The ability to speak without getting arrested in important because it's only by examining ideas that we separate the good ones from the bad ones. When social media companies make it impossible to have real conversations about certain ideas, they damage the ability of society to make good decisions.
      - RuggedPineapple 6y ago
        You're diving of some deep ends and speaking concretely as if you have the answer about what the future humans will be thinking. Pretty sure I'm being Poe'd here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
IMO the purpose of free (political) speech is to prevent the people you are speaking from throwing you in jail for speaking about them. I could go into the various details of why I think moderation on internet platforms does not cause the same concerns, but you can probably fill in the blanks. If you can't, let me know and I can write a longer comment.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  > IMO the purpose of free (political) speech is to prevent the people you are speaking from throwing you in jail for speaking about them Go deeper. Why is it bad that the king be able to throw you in jail for insulting the king? You could make an argument that insulting the king undermines faith in the state and should therefore be punished. You can come up with an argument for anything. Why is it that we should reject this argument for king-insulting being a crime?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    We need to be able to speak negatively about the king in order to change him. Also people like to be able to talk and don't want to be in jail for doing so.
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      Sure. We need to be able to speak negatively about our elites to change them. For example, we need to call them out when they're lying. The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. The purpose of promoting free speech is to ensure that the ideas we adopt as truth are well tested against other ideas and correspond to some degree to reality. Mass social media censorship breaks the marketplace of ideas.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        > The purpose of the recent campaign against "disinformation" is to make it more difficult to point out that the elites are lying. That is not apparently true? Generally speaking the disinformation stuff is to prevent blatantly false conspiracy theories from being circulated widely? In any case, you're still free to talk about those ideas, you just don't necessarily have access to the level of circulation you might otherwise. Historically, this seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constitution was written, if you had a fringe idea, you could shout it on the streetcorner and tell all your friends in person, but it was time-consuming work. Unless you had access to capital, you were probably not going to have your ideas printed and spread beyond what you personally were able to accomplish via direct communication. I don't think the founders had it as a goal that every idea would be maximally disseminated. That's not what free speech was about, and, for me, that's not what free speech ought to be about.