4 ms·
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
by 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 agoyes, 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 agoThat'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 agothis link clarified some things for me,thanks
- chc 6y agoWhatever news source you heard talking about section 230, you should stop trusting it, because they are actively misinforming you.
- ericd 6y agoYou 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 agoWe 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 agoI'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 agodo you think your water and energy utilities should be free to decide whether to serve your house or not?
- hctaw 6y agoAll 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.