4 ms·

Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the

Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. That includes the right not to be compelled to let others use you to broadcast messages you disagree with. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

xpe 6y ago
> Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. This is a powerful idea. Have you found legal protections in the United States for this principle? I can think of some limited examples (Miranda rights, for example), but I do not, off the top of my head, see the the U.S. Constitution as generally protecting this right broadly.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...
mc32 6y ago
Wait... so Zuckerberg is totally cool if he goes and censors anything and everything that speaks ill of him or Facebook? Cool if he censors anyone who sues FB or him? Is that your position on a medium that is built for people to post diverse opinions? What if he suffers a stroke and suddenly becomes a religious nut, cool if he only allows promotion of his religion on his medium and bans all others? Good god, we’re effed!
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Zuckerberg is free to do what he wants on the platform he owns. Just like you're free to do what you want on a platform you own. Or are you saying that if you publish a webpage on your own server promoting your religion I can force you to also post my religion on the same page?
  - mc32 6y ago
    He built a _social_ network with 4 billion users, he didn't build "my blog of religious musings"
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      So what is the line at which you're not longer able to run a platform you built the way you want? 10 users? 100? 1 million? 1 billion? Or is it just whatever you personally feel qualifies?
      - mc32 6y ago
        Maybe when you spend billions actively recruiting and addicting users and sucking up their personal info to further your social network?
        triceratops 6y ago
        Maybe that's the thing you should be mad about then. Instead of calling this a free speech issue. Which it's not.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  > so Zuckerberg is totally cool That is very nearly the opposite of what I said. Freedom of speech is not the freedom from consequences. It may be perfectly legal for Zuckerberg to do something like that, but it would most certainly not be cool. He'd rightfully be considered an asshole, and his advertising revenue would probably take a large hit as a result of everyone else exercising their own rights of free speech and free association. As well they should. However, that hypothetical isn't a great analogy for the reality that we're talking about here. It's a decent enough parallel in a strictly legal sense. But let's keep it real: one isn't making nearly as much of an asshole of oneself by refusing to help someone undermine democracy. Nor is one making much of an asshole of oneself by refusing to support the activities of white supremacists.
- xpe 6y ago
  By leaving "totally cool" undefined, your point is ambiguous. There are legal, moral, and social aspects here. The discussion will be more productive if you will clarify.
refurb 6y ago
The huh? Are you saying if Twitter was compelling to let Trump on their platform and send messages that’s the same as compelling speech? But it’s not Twitters speech. It’s Trumps.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  The linked article includes links out to other articles that go into more detail.
mc32 6y ago
This is meaningless. Of course on the USSR you were free to rattle off “Lenin was a Traitor” in front of the Kremlin, but you had to face the consequences of that.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Sure, the consequences of soft endorsing violence on Twitter are really huge; like being denied from using or just posting on Twitter. Clearly not comparable to being put in a jail, and losing a job as well as future access to some jobs.

xpe 6y ago

> Free speech is not just the freedom to say what you want to say. It is also the freedom not to be compelled to say what you don't want to say. This is a powerful idea. Have you found legal protections in the United States for this principle? I can think of some limited examples (Miranda rights, for example), but I do not, off the top of my head, see the the U.S. Constitution as generally protecting this right broadly.

mumblemumble 6y ago
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...

mc32 6y ago

Wait... so Zuckerberg is totally cool if he goes and censors anything and everything that speaks ill of him or Facebook? Cool if he censors anyone who sues FB or him? Is that your position on a medium that is built for people to post diverse opinions? What if he suffers a stroke and suddenly becomes a religious nut, cool if he only allows promotion of his religion on his medium and bans all others? Good god, we’re effed!

marcinzm 6y ago
Zuckerberg is free to do what he wants on the platform he owns. Just like you're free to do what you want on a platform you own. Or are you saying that if you publish a webpage on your own server promoting your religion I can force you to also post my religion on the same page?
- mc32 6y ago
  He built a _social_ network with 4 billion users, he didn't build "my blog of religious musings"
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    So what is the line at which you're not longer able to run a platform you built the way you want? 10 users? 100? 1 million? 1 billion? Or is it just whatever you personally feel qualifies?
    - mc32 6y ago
      Maybe when you spend billions actively recruiting and addicting users and sucking up their personal info to further your social network?
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Maybe that's the thing you should be mad about then. Instead of calling this a free speech issue. Which it's not.
mumblemumble 6y ago
> so Zuckerberg is totally cool That is very nearly the opposite of what I said. Freedom of speech is not the freedom from consequences. It may be perfectly legal for Zuckerberg to do something like that, but it would most certainly not be cool. He'd rightfully be considered an asshole, and his advertising revenue would probably take a large hit as a result of everyone else exercising their own rights of free speech and free association. As well they should. However, that hypothetical isn't a great analogy for the reality that we're talking about here. It's a decent enough parallel in a strictly legal sense. But let's keep it real: one isn't making nearly as much of an asshole of oneself by refusing to help someone undermine democracy. Nor is one making much of an asshole of oneself by refusing to support the activities of white supremacists.
xpe 6y ago
By leaving "totally cool" undefined, your point is ambiguous. There are legal, moral, and social aspects here. The discussion will be more productive if you will clarify.

refurb 6y ago

The huh? Are you saying if Twitter was compelling to let Trump on their platform and send messages that’s the same as compelling speech? But it’s not Twitters speech. It’s Trumps.

mumblemumble 6y ago
The linked article includes links out to other articles that go into more detail.

mc32 6y ago

This is meaningless. Of course on the USSR you were free to rattle off “Lenin was a Traitor” in front of the Kremlin, but you had to face the consequences of that.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Sure, the consequences of soft endorsing violence on Twitter are really huge; like being denied from using or just posting on Twitter. Clearly not comparable to being put in a jail, and losing a job as well as future access to some jobs.