4 ms·

The first amendment does not exist in a vacuum, it is based on an ideal so prevalent and powerful at the time it was literally the first thing they thought to i

by zionic 6y ago

The first amendment does not exist in a vacuum, it is based on an ideal so prevalent and powerful at the time it was literally the first thing they thought to include. Supporting freedom of speech is a moral imperative, and if your only defense of companies that suppress free expression is “well, it’s not technically illegal” maybe it’s time to take a long look in the mirror.

betterunix2 6y ago
It was not the first thing they thought to include, it is an amendment -- literally something they did not bother to include when the wrote the original constitution. It is also very clear from the context and time at which it was written that the "speech" referred to in the first amendment is political discourse, not speech in general. Plotting a violent overthrow of the government is not what the Founders had in mind, something that they themselves made clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act See the part about making false statements critical of the US government? Funny how Gab was created in response to Twitter taking action to stop people from doing exactly that on their platform. Whatever free speech ideal Gab stands for is not what people who ratified the first amendment had in mind.
esoterica 6y ago
If you think supporting free speech is a moral imperative even for private companies, why do keep posting on a heavily moderated forum like HN that regularly bans people for trolling and being rude? Is that a tacit admission that censorship is sometimes desirable? If you were consistent about applying your principles you would boycott HN too.
- claytongulick 6y ago
  Because absolutism is infantile?
grahamburger 6y ago
Part of supporting free speech is accepting that private companies are not compelled to publish or support political leaders or their followers. It would be a bigger threat to free speech if Twitter etc. were required to publish the president's tweets just because he's the president. Of course it might end up being a bad idea for tech companies to deplatform the president and his cronies, but doing so is excersizing free speech rights, not restricting them. In general where two entities free speech rights are in conflict I would suggest it's best to make sure the less powerful entity gets the right of way. As powerful as social media platforms are, they're still not at powerful as the U.S. President.
- zionic 6y ago
  Compelled? No. Financial orgs are not compelled to be moral. But as the left loves: freedom from prosecution is not freedom from consequences
dhshsi537 6y ago
Technically it’s not illegal is a big deal when the law in question is the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Moderation is the exercise of free speech by the companies. It is government regulation of their moderation policies that would be censorship and violation of their first amendment rights. Should the government be able to force Twitter, Facebook, or you personal blog to carry spam ads for “natural male enhancement” pills under force of law? Again, what you are advocating for are penalties levied against private enterprises by the government. I do not understand how this is a better than the status quo where someone is banned from a website and faces absolutely no legal repercussions. Please help me understand.

by zionic 6y ago

betterunix2 6y ago

It was not the first thing they thought to include, it is an amendment -- literally something they did not bother to include when the wrote the original constitution. It is also very clear from the context and time at which it was written that the "speech" referred to in the first amendment is political discourse, not speech in general. Plotting a violent overthrow of the government is not what the Founders had in mind, something that they themselves made clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act See the part about making false statements critical of the US government? Funny how Gab was created in response to Twitter taking action to stop people from doing exactly that on their platform. Whatever free speech ideal Gab stands for is not what people who ratified the first amendment had in mind.

esoterica 6y ago

If you think supporting free speech is a moral imperative even for private companies, why do keep posting on a heavily moderated forum like HN that regularly bans people for trolling and being rude? Is that a tacit admission that censorship is sometimes desirable? If you were consistent about applying your principles you would boycott HN too.

claytongulick 6y ago
Because absolutism is infantile?

grahamburger 6y ago

Part of supporting free speech is accepting that private companies are not compelled to publish or support political leaders or their followers. It would be a bigger threat to free speech if Twitter etc. were required to publish the president's tweets just because he's the president. Of course it might end up being a bad idea for tech companies to deplatform the president and his cronies, but doing so is excersizing free speech rights, not restricting them. In general where two entities free speech rights are in conflict I would suggest it's best to make sure the less powerful entity gets the right of way. As powerful as social media platforms are, they're still not at powerful as the U.S. President.

zionic 6y ago
Compelled? No. Financial orgs are not compelled to be moral. But as the left loves: freedom from prosecution is not freedom from consequences

dhshsi537 6y ago

Technically it’s not illegal is a big deal when the law in question is the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Moderation is the exercise of free speech by the companies. It is government regulation of their moderation policies that would be censorship and violation of their first amendment rights. Should the government be able to force Twitter, Facebook, or you personal blog to carry spam ads for “natural male enhancement” pills under force of law? Again, what you are advocating for are penalties levied against private enterprises by the government. I do not understand how this is a better than the status quo where someone is banned from a website and faces absolutely no legal repercussions. Please help me understand.