7 ms·

Those are examples of limiting of free speech edit: it seems people have misunderstood my comment to take a position. I' m taking issue with the idea that "fre

by hctaw 6y ago

Those are examples of limiting of free speech edit: it seems people have misunderstood my comment to take a position. I' m taking issue with the idea that "free speech doesn't need limits" followed by a listing of limits applied to free speech. If we can't agree that there even exists such limits and that perhaps they're necessary any discussion below is fruitless.

option 6y ago
no it is not. Saying “covid is a hoax” should be protected by free speech because it is an expression of (stupidly false) opinion. Saying “we storm Capiton at 8:00am on Jan 6” is a call to violent action, not an idea, thought, or opinion and obviously must be taken down ASAP
- ardy42 6y ago
  > no it is not. Saying “covid is a hoax” should be protected by free speech because it is an expression of (stupidly false) opinion. But I shouldn't be obligated to let someone put a sign saying that on my lawn, nor should I be obligated to remain friends with someone who is pushing that lie. Most of the people who are complaining about free speech being limited are really arguing for things like the above.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    yes, but then you don't get covered under section 230, because you are actively making judgement calls, and therefore, should be liable for those.
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      That's really not how Section 230 works. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
      - foolinaround 6y ago
        this link clarified some things for me,thanks
    - chc 6y ago
      Whatever news source you heard talking about section 230, you should stop trusting it, because they are actively misinforming you.
  - ericd 6y ago
    You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you preventing specific messages on systemically important communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. It’s the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was ultimately broken up via antitrust. You running a corner store the way you want is fine, you running the only store in the country the way you want is not.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you preventing specific messages on systemically important communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. It’s the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was ultimately broken up via antitrust. You know, you don't need AWS to run a website, right? Similarly, newspapers have often been local monopolies, but as far as I know, they've always been able to decline to publish a letter to the editor. Whoever wants to stick a sign on my lawn is going to come up with some rationale to force me to do it, but that doesn't mean it holds any water.
- majormajor 6y ago
  We got to the latter because of years and years of the former. "You're allowed to talk people into believing that they need to violently rebel, but you're not allowed to actually do the rebelling" is not a particularly reasonable position.
- avgDev 6y ago
  I'm working on a blog, where users will post about their experience with a particular drug and its side effects. Since, I am paying for hosting and I created the blog, I will NOT allow any pseudo science. Am I limiting free speech? No. There is a good reason twitter, facebook, youtube does remove certain content. They have the right to remove whatever they want.
  - option 6y ago
    do you think your water and energy utilities should be free to decide whether to serve your house or not?
- hctaw 6y ago
  All speech is free speech. Avoid hyperbole here because it doesn't help. Your examples both kinds of speech that people think should be limited, trying to discard one as not speech rather than focusing at hand on what speech should be limited does nothing but rile up those that disagree with your examples.
kolinko 6y ago
+1. If someone publishes fake news about vaccines, it takes a lot of effort then for people to keep explaining to other people how this is not true. It is harmful to society, and unfair - it takes less time to invent a new hoax than to fact-check it. Just like loitering on the ground is considered an offence, so should be publishing fake news. It doesn't hurt one person, but it hurts society. There also are objective criteria for determining if something is fake or not - so it is possible to create laws that forbid it and don't limit a freedom of opinion.
- silexia 6y ago
  Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? Free speech is something provided by the government, not by private companies. Any private company, such as a restaurant, can throw you out for any reason outside of discriminating against a protected class. What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you want to be forced to work with companies you abhor?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? It's not irrelevant. > What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. To the extent that that is based on expressive preference, that is an aspect of free speech, and the closely-related right of free association. Limiting that right is limiting free speech.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      On the other hand, forcing a platform to allow expression they disagree with is limiting their free speech to not amplify something.
      - 6y ago
coryfklein 6y ago
I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things. I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social and technological context, but when those latter things change, the line may need to be adjusted.
  - coryfklein 6y ago
    See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing." TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words" [1] https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing." It's worth noting that no legally forbidden censorship has been happening with regards to the recent insurrection against congress. > TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words" But that's not a fixed fact of nature, it's a reaction to a particular social and technological context. For instance, if someone discovers an idea instantly turns 10% those who hear it into murderous zealots (sort of like the poem in "The Tyranny of Heaven" by Stephen Baxter), that idea is going to censored hard and the Supreme Court will be like "yup, ban it." Likewise, if some social change or technology renders the legal regime that the Supreme Court has created a cause of serious dysfunction, then Supreme Court is going to have to change that regime to accommodate. Idealism's great, but not when it doesn't work.

by hctaw 6y ago

option 6y ago

no it is not. Saying “covid is a hoax” should be protected by free speech because it is an expression of (stupidly false) opinion. Saying “we storm Capiton at 8:00am on Jan 6” is a call to violent action, not an idea, thought, or opinion and obviously must be taken down ASAP

ardy42 6y ago
> no it is not. Saying “covid is a hoax” should be protected by free speech because it is an expression of (stupidly false) opinion. But I shouldn't be obligated to let someone put a sign saying that on my lawn, nor should I be obligated to remain friends with someone who is pushing that lie. Most of the people who are complaining about free speech being limited are really arguing for things like the above.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  yes, but then you don't get covered under section 230, because you are actively making judgement calls, and therefore, should be liable for those.
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    That's really not how Section 230 works. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
    - foolinaround 6y ago
      this link clarified some things for me,thanks
  - chc 6y ago
    Whatever news source you heard talking about section 230, you should stop trusting it, because they are actively misinforming you.
- ericd 6y ago
  You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you preventing specific messages on systemically important communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. It’s the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was ultimately broken up via antitrust. You running a corner store the way you want is fine, you running the only store in the country the way you want is not.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You preventing signs on your lawn are fine, you preventing specific messages on systemically important communications infrastructure you happen to own is not. It’s the same reason that AT&T was heavily regulated back when it carried 90% of telecom traffic and before it was ultimately broken up via antitrust. You know, you don't need AWS to run a website, right? Similarly, newspapers have often been local monopolies, but as far as I know, they've always been able to decline to publish a letter to the editor. Whoever wants to stick a sign on my lawn is going to come up with some rationale to force me to do it, but that doesn't mean it holds any water.
majormajor 6y ago
We got to the latter because of years and years of the former. "You're allowed to talk people into believing that they need to violently rebel, but you're not allowed to actually do the rebelling" is not a particularly reasonable position.
avgDev 6y ago
I'm working on a blog, where users will post about their experience with a particular drug and its side effects. Since, I am paying for hosting and I created the blog, I will NOT allow any pseudo science. Am I limiting free speech? No. There is a good reason twitter, facebook, youtube does remove certain content. They have the right to remove whatever they want.
- option 6y ago
  do you think your water and energy utilities should be free to decide whether to serve your house or not?
hctaw 6y ago
All speech is free speech. Avoid hyperbole here because it doesn't help. Your examples both kinds of speech that people think should be limited, trying to discard one as not speech rather than focusing at hand on what speech should be limited does nothing but rile up those that disagree with your examples.

kolinko 6y ago

+1. If someone publishes fake news about vaccines, it takes a lot of effort then for people to keep explaining to other people how this is not true. It is harmful to society, and unfair - it takes less time to invent a new hoax than to fact-check it. Just like loitering on the ground is considered an offence, so should be publishing fake news. It doesn't hurt one person, but it hurts society. There also are objective criteria for determining if something is fake or not - so it is possible to create laws that forbid it and don't limit a freedom of opinion.

silexia 6y ago
Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? Free speech is something provided by the government, not by private companies. Any private company, such as a restaurant, can throw you out for any reason outside of discriminating against a protected class. What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you want to be forced to work with companies you abhor?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Why is everyone debating on whether they should be limits on free speech when that is irrelevant? It's not irrelevant. > What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. To the extent that that is based on expressive preference, that is an aspect of free speech, and the closely-related right of free association. Limiting that right is limiting free speech.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    On the other hand, forcing a platform to allow expression they disagree with is limiting their free speech to not amplify something.
    - 6y ago

coryfklein 6y ago

I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things.

ardy42 6y ago
> I think parent was pointing out that the question of "where should the line be drawn and who should draw it" has already been settled. Those things are already illegal, so we don't need to impose further restrictions on speech in order to prevent those things. I'm skeptical that such a line can ever be truly "settled." Sure, it can be settled in a particular social and technological context, but when those latter things change, the line may need to be adjusted.
- coryfklein 6y ago
  See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing." TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words" [1] https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > See Trope 9: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing." It's worth noting that no legally forbidden censorship has been happening with regards to the recent insurrection against congress. > TLDR: yeah, the law can change, but it's highly unlikely because "the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words" But that's not a fixed fact of nature, it's a reaction to a particular social and technological context. For instance, if someone discovers an idea instantly turns 10% those who hear it into murderous zealots (sort of like the poem in "The Tyranny of Heaven" by Stephen Baxter), that idea is going to censored hard and the Supreme Court will be like "yup, ban it." Likewise, if some social change or technology renders the legal regime that the Supreme Court has created a cause of serious dysfunction, then Supreme Court is going to have to change that regime to accommodate. Idealism's great, but not when it doesn't work.