12 ms·

> Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done. If somebody speaks in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, do the

> Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done. If somebody speaks in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, do they make a sound? Yes, they technically have free speech, but in reality not really. The purpose of speech is that you might persuade somebody else. If there's nobody to talk to, you might as well not speak at all.

jude- 6y ago
Freedom of speech does not entitle to you an audience or distribution network. It never has.
save_ferris 6y ago
Freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
- briandear 6y ago
  False statements aren’t protected? Then why was “Russia Collusion” speech not banned? Why didn’t Twitter label all of the Russian Collusion nonsense as false? The Steele Dossier was a complete fabrication, but Twitter did absolutely nothing. Are false statements not false if they come from Democrats? Because that’s certainly how it appears. Sheila Jackson-Lee in 2016 led opposition to the electoral count — even said the election was faulty and unfair. Seditious statements using the current standard of sedition being tossed around. The hypocrisy is astounding. Can ANTIFA use Stripe? Because they burned down police stations and even assaulted elected officials. The US has become fascist in a hurry — and it isn’t because of any Trump policy.
yibg 6y ago
You don't have an inherent right to a megaphone. Freedom of speech means you don't get in trouble from the government for saying things, not that you have the right to broadcast your message.
- johndevor 6y ago
  If you can't broadcast, what good is your message?
  - jusssi 6y ago
    If you can't broadcast, how good is your message? If you can't convince enough people that your message is worth propagating, maybe it isn't. If you can, you will have the means.
    - yurielt 6y ago
      If you can you will have the means? Lmao sounds like you believe popular support is an indicator of correctness and that is very very wrong you should read about Galileo pal
      - jusssi 6y ago
        Lmao, pal to you too. Galileo succeeded, we heard his theory and eventually found it more correct than the previous one. And he managed that without Twitter, Youtube or Parler.
        yurielt 6y ago
        Yeah but the suffering that had to take place in order for that to happen was erroneous we should strive to avoid that and not licking Bezzos and ZUckerberg boots is part of a society where Galileos have to avoid trials
        jusssi 6y ago
nobody9999 6y ago
Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares. You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit. But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech. The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the owners of those spaces. You seem to be under the misapprehension that certain private actors are required to allow your speech. That's not true. They are responsible only to their shareholders and to a lesser extent, their customers -- and in this case their customers are advertisers and not you. You are the product being sold. If you don't think that's right or fair, then don't interact with those private actors. If enough people chose not to deal with them, they would lose their power and influence. I voted with my feet years ago. If you haven't, then you're part of the problem and not the solution.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Claiming they are not public squares is correct and says very little. When capitalism revealed its ability to create abusive monopolies, we created new laws to mitigate those harms. When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena. Where did I say that wasn't appropriate? I strongly believe that those big social media companies not only have too much power and influence, but that their business models are exploitative and morally repugnant. Which is why I don't use them. At all. In fact, I detailed[0] how I thought this issue should be dealt with the other day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032

jude- 6y ago

Freedom of speech does not entitle to you an audience or distribution network. It never has.

save_ferris 6y ago

Freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

briandear 6y ago
False statements aren’t protected? Then why was “Russia Collusion” speech not banned? Why didn’t Twitter label all of the Russian Collusion nonsense as false? The Steele Dossier was a complete fabrication, but Twitter did absolutely nothing. Are false statements not false if they come from Democrats? Because that’s certainly how it appears. Sheila Jackson-Lee in 2016 led opposition to the electoral count — even said the election was faulty and unfair. Seditious statements using the current standard of sedition being tossed around. The hypocrisy is astounding. Can ANTIFA use Stripe? Because they burned down police stations and even assaulted elected officials. The US has become fascist in a hurry — and it isn’t because of any Trump policy.

yibg 6y ago

You don't have an inherent right to a megaphone. Freedom of speech means you don't get in trouble from the government for saying things, not that you have the right to broadcast your message.

johndevor 6y ago
If you can't broadcast, what good is your message?
- jusssi 6y ago
  If you can't broadcast, how good is your message? If you can't convince enough people that your message is worth propagating, maybe it isn't. If you can, you will have the means.
  - yurielt 6y ago
    If you can you will have the means? Lmao sounds like you believe popular support is an indicator of correctness and that is very very wrong you should read about Galileo pal
    - jusssi 6y ago
      Lmao, pal to you too. Galileo succeeded, we heard his theory and eventually found it more correct than the previous one. And he managed that without Twitter, Youtube or Parler.
      - yurielt 6y ago
        Yeah but the suffering that had to take place in order for that to happen was erroneous we should strive to avoid that and not licking Bezzos and ZUckerberg boots is part of a society where Galileos have to avoid trials
        jusssi 6y ago

nobody9999 6y ago

Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares. You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit. But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech. The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the owners of those spaces. You seem to be under the misapprehension that certain private actors are required to allow your speech. That's not true. They are responsible only to their shareholders and to a lesser extent, their customers -- and in this case their customers are advertisers and not you. You are the product being sold. If you don't think that's right or fair, then don't interact with those private actors. If enough people chose not to deal with them, they would lose their power and influence. I voted with my feet years ago. If you haven't, then you're part of the problem and not the solution.

gfodor 6y ago
Claiming they are not public squares is correct and says very little. When capitalism revealed its ability to create abusive monopolies, we created new laws to mitigate those harms. When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena. Where did I say that wasn't appropriate? I strongly believe that those big social media companies not only have too much power and influence, but that their business models are exploitative and morally repugnant. Which is why I don't use them. At all. In fact, I detailed[0] how I thought this issue should be dealt with the other day. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032