4 ms·

Let's set aside the distinction between free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment vs. the broader free speech ideal that's foundational to our societ

Let's set aside the distinction between free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment vs. the broader free speech ideal that's foundational to our society, since it isn't even needed: as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government, so the reasoning behind the First Amendment's existence directly applies here. (This is not an endorsement of the delusional presidential behavior that created the leadership vacuum filled by the corporations.)

eightysixfour 6y ago
The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be government overreach to tell the platforms that they're required to host whatever speech is posted to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in other comments, there are more ways to communicate now than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet does. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 Where would you draw the line?
- chrchang523 6y ago
  The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    > In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
    - chrchang523 6y ago
      If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government To elaborate on the other user, Germany and France both ban holocaust denial and "hate speech", which would include much of the content on Parler. Mexico's speech laws are less clear, but if my reading is correct the constitution allows regulation of hate speech. And in practice, speech in Mexico isn't protected from the government or cartels. So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. This would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, at which point anything goes. Excluding that, what you see (and will continue to see) is corporations stepping in to ban hate speech because the government is restricted from doing so.
- chrchang523 6y ago
  Did you actually read what Merkel or AMLO said? The first sentence of your second paragraph ("So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech.") can be immediately verified to be false in the sense that you are stating it (as justification for the platforms' behavior).
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said social media companies "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence." > He said it's right not to "stand back" when such content is posted, for example by flagging it, but qualified that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of "elementary significance." > Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. [0] You mean verified to be correct as confirmed by her spokesperson who released the initial statement. (Seibert released the initial statement, as can be seen here[1]) So yes, the statement can be seen as saying two things 1. Twitter is too powerful and needs to be regulated 2. The US needs stronger regulations on hate speech. [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters-problematic-trump-ban https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters... [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...

eightysixfour 6y ago

The irony of referencing Germany as an example when Germany has an explicit ban on speech that is anti-constitutional is pretty high here. It would be government overreach to tell the platforms that they're required to host whatever speech is posted to them, not the other way around. As I've mentioned in other comments, there are more ways to communicate now than at any other time in history. Facebook and Twitter do not have monopolies on speech, nothing on the internet does. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25750501 Where would you draw the line?

chrchang523 6y ago
The issue is that the corporations are acting as the government. As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries).
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  > In your linked comment, all of these governments recognize (3) as a scenario that should be governed by laws (which vary between countries). So why not 2? When does 2 become 3? > As you noted, Germany restricts speech more than the US for obvious historical reasons. So the fact that even their government objects to this behavior is evidence against your position, not mine. The German and French government objects to the US not having laws that require this behavior and leaving it in the hands of private companies, sure, and I object to the US having censorship laws and would rather private entities be able to make the decision for themselves, the direction of MORE freedom of speech.
  - chrchang523 6y ago
    If this was primarily about "[objecting] to the US not having laws that require this behavior", their emphasis would not have been on the platforms being out of line.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> as suggested by the objections from Germany, France, and Mexico noted by Greenwald, these corporations are effectively acting as the government To elaborate on the other user, Germany and France both ban holocaust denial and "hate speech", which would include much of the content on Parler. Mexico's speech laws are less clear, but if my reading is correct the constitution allows regulation of hate speech. And in practice, speech in Mexico isn't protected from the government or cartels. So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech. This would, of course, require a constitutional amendment, at which point anything goes. Excluding that, what you see (and will continue to see) is corporations stepping in to ban hate speech because the government is restricted from doing so.

chrchang523 6y ago
Did you actually read what Merkel or AMLO said? The first sentence of your second paragraph ("So France and Germany could be seen as asking the US government to take a stronger stance on hate speech.") can be immediately verified to be false in the sense that you are stating it (as justification for the platforms' behavior).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Asked about Twitter's decision, Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said social media companies "bear great responsibility for political communication not being poisoned by hatred, by lies and by incitement to violence." > He said it's right not to "stand back" when such content is posted, for example by flagging it, but qualified that the freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of "elementary significance." > Seibert said the U.S. ought to follow Germany’s example in how it handles online incitement. Rather than leaving it up to tech companies to make their own rules, German law compels these companies to remove possibly illegal material within 24 hours of being notified or face up to $60.8 million in fines. [0] You mean verified to be correct as confirmed by her spokesperson who released the initial statement. (Seibert released the initial statement, as can be seen here[1]) So yes, the statement can be seen as saying two things 1. Twitter is too powerful and needs to be regulated 2. The US needs stronger regulations on hate speech. [0]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters-problematic-trump-ban https://www.foxnews.com/politics/angela-merkel-rips-twitters... [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-twitter-over-problematic-trump-ban.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...