4 ms·

Free-speech-as-legal-right and free-speech-as-moral-principle are different: the legal right exists to uphold the moral principle. You're probably correct when

by strken 6y ago

Free-speech-as-legal-right and free-speech-as-moral-principle are different: the legal right exists to uphold the moral principle. You're probably correct when you say the legal right can't be infringed in a commercial context, but the moral principle can be violated by anyone. I think a lot of confusion comes from people who only acknowledge free-speech-as-legal-right encountering people who support free-speech-as-moral-principle.

dontreact 6y ago
I'm not sure that free-speech-as-moral-principle applies to platforming speech vs. not platforming speech. Everyone is free to say and think and express themselves as they want to, and this seems totally separate from a right to reach millions via the work of others.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  Sure, but you're selling something other than a platform for open interaction and discussion at that point, right?
  - dontreact 6y ago
    If you allow trolls and nazis to take over an online space, it scares people away and is no longer a place for open interaction
- strken 6y ago
  Like all moral principles, everyone interprets it differently, and your interpretation probably differs from my interpretation. My personal belief about why free speech should exist is that it helps us discover the truth, both morally and factually. As such, I think we should make spaces accessible that allow any idea to be discussed, even the ones we currently think are wrong, and if we limit speech we should do it such that no idea is rendered inexpressible. However, I understand that not every space should be a complete free-for-all, and I have no problem with limiting the way in which an idea can be presented to ensure politeness or harmlessness. Within the scope of this belief, I find it obviously okay to deplatform speech up until doing so harms our overall ability to discover the truth. Past that point a tradeoff exists. I think that the removal of Parler is a tradeoff between the free speech of its users, vs the self-determination of Google, the potential harm done by Parler, and the existence of other spaces where ideas can still be discussed. While I therefore find removing Parler to be acceptable, I still feel that the moral principle of free speech must be applied to that decision, even if it's outweighed by other factors.
  - dontreact 6y ago
    To me it sounds like you are cleanly separating 1. The moral principle of what should be platformed (which you agree is not everything) 2. The moral principle of free speech (which is what is in the constitution preventing the government from preventing freedom of expression)
cogman10 6y ago
The issue to me is that people view free-speech-as-moral-principle often as a binary choice. It's either "you allow all speech or it's immoral" Here's the rub, I think most people also support limiting extreme speech. IDK that there are many (any?) defenders of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. That, to me, indicates that the morality of limiting speech is more than just a simple binary choice "any limits are bad, no limits are good". That's what "Free-speech-as-legal-right" is really trying to get at. It is the law trying to make the moral arguments for what free speech is and isn't and when it can be morally curtailed. To me, the law has struck a decent balance. I don't think it's hugely immoral for a social media company to moderate their own content however they choose. Are downvotes in HN immoral? I don't think so. Do people here in HN believe flagged content is immoral or content that goes against the community rules? I don't think so. To me, the only way this would be an issue is if Parler had no method to get their platform running. That's not the case. They can self host if they so choose. It isn't unreasonable for them to do that (many companies do). That being said, I DO have an issue with ISPs choosing what content their customers have access to. That is mainly because a lot of people DON'T have a choice of provider. There is often only 1 high speed choice in a region. For them to filter or block content is a major issue.
- handoflixue 6y ago
  > It's either "you allow all speech or it's immoral" Not really. There's not currently any huge controversy about banning spammers, DDoS attacks, or child pornography. A few fringe groups will argue it, but most sensible discussion concedes that censorship is useful and we need limits.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    None of these things is a viewpoint. The objection is that tech companies shouldn't get to decide what viewpoints are allowed.
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      Tech companies aren't deciding what viewpoints are allowed. They are exercising their right of freedom of association. Parler's moderation policies caused their own problems. They decided they wanted to be a platform friendly to violent extremists. Their noted lack of moderation of violent rhetoric, calls to violence, and planning of violence made them a pariah. Amazon is free to associate with whoever they want. They don't owe service to Parler or anyone else.
three_seagrass 6y ago
>I think a lot of confusion comes from people who only acknowledge free-speech-as-legal-right encountering people who support free-speech-as-moral-principle. I think we can agree that there is confusion but not on the type of confusion. Even free-speech-as-moral-principle has limits, as defined by John Stuart Mill, who said that free speech can be curtailed when the expression causes harm. People get confused about this because they think free speech means all speech is free of consequence. Inciting violence, coordinating death threats against individuals, and other similar expression causes harm.

by strken 6y ago

dontreact 6y ago

I'm not sure that free-speech-as-moral-principle applies to platforming speech vs. not platforming speech. Everyone is free to say and think and express themselves as they want to, and this seems totally separate from a right to reach millions via the work of others.

humanrebar 6y ago
Sure, but you're selling something other than a platform for open interaction and discussion at that point, right?
- dontreact 6y ago
  If you allow trolls and nazis to take over an online space, it scares people away and is no longer a place for open interaction
strken 6y ago
Like all moral principles, everyone interprets it differently, and your interpretation probably differs from my interpretation. My personal belief about why free speech should exist is that it helps us discover the truth, both morally and factually. As such, I think we should make spaces accessible that allow any idea to be discussed, even the ones we currently think are wrong, and if we limit speech we should do it such that no idea is rendered inexpressible. However, I understand that not every space should be a complete free-for-all, and I have no problem with limiting the way in which an idea can be presented to ensure politeness or harmlessness. Within the scope of this belief, I find it obviously okay to deplatform speech up until doing so harms our overall ability to discover the truth. Past that point a tradeoff exists. I think that the removal of Parler is a tradeoff between the free speech of its users, vs the self-determination of Google, the potential harm done by Parler, and the existence of other spaces where ideas can still be discussed. While I therefore find removing Parler to be acceptable, I still feel that the moral principle of free speech must be applied to that decision, even if it's outweighed by other factors.
- dontreact 6y ago
  To me it sounds like you are cleanly separating 1. The moral principle of what should be platformed (which you agree is not everything) 2. The moral principle of free speech (which is what is in the constitution preventing the government from preventing freedom of expression)

cogman10 6y ago

The issue to me is that people view free-speech-as-moral-principle often as a binary choice. It's either "you allow all speech or it's immoral" Here's the rub, I think most people also support limiting extreme speech. IDK that there are many (any?) defenders of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. That, to me, indicates that the morality of limiting speech is more than just a simple binary choice "any limits are bad, no limits are good". That's what "Free-speech-as-legal-right" is really trying to get at. It is the law trying to make the moral arguments for what free speech is and isn't and when it can be morally curtailed. To me, the law has struck a decent balance. I don't think it's hugely immoral for a social media company to moderate their own content however they choose. Are downvotes in HN immoral? I don't think so. Do people here in HN believe flagged content is immoral or content that goes against the community rules? I don't think so. To me, the only way this would be an issue is if Parler had no method to get their platform running. That's not the case. They can self host if they so choose. It isn't unreasonable for them to do that (many companies do). That being said, I DO have an issue with ISPs choosing what content their customers have access to. That is mainly because a lot of people DON'T have a choice of provider. There is often only 1 high speed choice in a region. For them to filter or block content is a major issue.

handoflixue 6y ago
> It's either "you allow all speech or it's immoral" Not really. There's not currently any huge controversy about banning spammers, DDoS attacks, or child pornography. A few fringe groups will argue it, but most sensible discussion concedes that censorship is useful and we need limits.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  None of these things is a viewpoint. The objection is that tech companies shouldn't get to decide what viewpoints are allowed.
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    Tech companies aren't deciding what viewpoints are allowed. They are exercising their right of freedom of association. Parler's moderation policies caused their own problems. They decided they wanted to be a platform friendly to violent extremists. Their noted lack of moderation of violent rhetoric, calls to violence, and planning of violence made them a pariah. Amazon is free to associate with whoever they want. They don't owe service to Parler or anyone else.

three_seagrass 6y ago

>I think a lot of confusion comes from people who only acknowledge free-speech-as-legal-right encountering people who support free-speech-as-moral-principle. I think we can agree that there is confusion but not on the type of confusion. Even free-speech-as-moral-principle has limits, as defined by John Stuart Mill, who said that free speech can be curtailed when the expression causes harm. People get confused about this because they think free speech means all speech is free of consequence. Inciting violence, coordinating death threats against individuals, and other similar expression causes harm.