4 ms·

I think the confusion stems from the fact that most people speak through or on private property—both digital and physical. But they're taught in school that th

I think the confusion stems from the fact that most people speak through or on private property—both digital and physical. But they're taught in school that there is a general "freedom of speech" which doesn't really exist. This sentiment is echoed in mass American media to adults. There's very little "public" speech in a legal sense. The most populated speech structures are privately owned. Censorship is built into those structures. America, as a whole, does not have "free speech" except for property owners. Unless you're on public property, behaving lawfully, such as in court, or "speaking truth" next to the post office, etc. etc. you don't have free speech. So, when people hold a good portion of their discourse through private structures, those structures seem public. The host companies seem like governments through terms of services. They see the first amendment as applying there by default.

asdff 6y ago
There is plenty of public speech. You are free to start your own version of AWS and host whatever you'd like on it. You are free to stand on a street corner and start reading out loud from Mein Kampf if you'd like. You are even allowed to march the streets waving a nazi or confederate flag. Private people and companies, on the other hand, are under no obligation to help further your speech.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Awesome. Now we have established that Big Tech and social media are against free speech, we can all move on.
  - asdff 6y ago
    They aren’t against free speech, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Is a bartender kicking out a rowdy patron against free speech?
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      That wasn’t my point. Your point is that there is a bar that kicks out patrons. Noted. So some people will avoid that bar. Why pretend that it’s open to all. Clearly it’s only open to those who fit the bartender’s definition of acceptable conduct. HST: Sensible people would opine that if the bartender doesn’t have want non bartender approved behaviour, he should clearly paste the instructions and definition of what’s acceptable and what’s not. Also: not serve alcohol or substances that encourage unruly behaviour. In the current scenario, anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Done. We have established that. Case closed. Conclusion: Big Tech is against free speech. We need a baseline understanding of the rules of the game. Why are they acting coy about it? Why not state it and move on?
      - asdff 6y ago
        >anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Only if you define pro-trump speech as solely hateful language against other groups or calls to violence. That's all that's been banned. You can go tweet "I really like Trump's policy positions" all you want and you won't get banned. But when you start spewing hate speech or calling people to violence then don't be surprised you've been kicked out of the bar. I can't believe this nuance is missed on this forum.
        jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        > I can't believe this nuance is missed on this forum. That’s because everything you said falls under ‘free speech’. Incitement requires proof. Free speech isn’t illegal. That’s why pro lifers outside abortion clinics can call visitors to the clinic, ‘baby-killers who deserve to die’ and ACLU will protect their right to free speech. They can only be charged if they ACT. What we are seeing is cognitive dissonance because only a few months ago during peak covid, the same platforms ALLOWED incitement and continued to condone violence as said incitement lead to buildings being burned, properties destroyed and lives lost. And no legal action was taken.

asdff 6y ago

There is plenty of public speech. You are free to start your own version of AWS and host whatever you'd like on it. You are free to stand on a street corner and start reading out loud from Mein Kampf if you'd like. You are even allowed to march the streets waving a nazi or confederate flag. Private people and companies, on the other hand, are under no obligation to help further your speech.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Awesome. Now we have established that Big Tech and social media are against free speech, we can all move on.
- asdff 6y ago
  They aren’t against free speech, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Is a bartender kicking out a rowdy patron against free speech?
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    That wasn’t my point. Your point is that there is a bar that kicks out patrons. Noted. So some people will avoid that bar. Why pretend that it’s open to all. Clearly it’s only open to those who fit the bartender’s definition of acceptable conduct. HST: Sensible people would opine that if the bartender doesn’t have want non bartender approved behaviour, he should clearly paste the instructions and definition of what’s acceptable and what’s not. Also: not serve alcohol or substances that encourage unruly behaviour. In the current scenario, anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Done. We have established that. Case closed. Conclusion: Big Tech is against free speech. We need a baseline understanding of the rules of the game. Why are they acting coy about it? Why not state it and move on?
    - asdff 6y ago
      >anything pro-trump is not acceptable. Only if you define pro-trump speech as solely hateful language against other groups or calls to violence. That's all that's been banned. You can go tweet "I really like Trump's policy positions" all you want and you won't get banned. But when you start spewing hate speech or calling people to violence then don't be surprised you've been kicked out of the bar. I can't believe this nuance is missed on this forum.
      - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
        > I can't believe this nuance is missed on this forum. That’s because everything you said falls under ‘free speech’. Incitement requires proof. Free speech isn’t illegal. That’s why pro lifers outside abortion clinics can call visitors to the clinic, ‘baby-killers who deserve to die’ and ACLU will protect their right to free speech. They can only be charged if they ACT. What we are seeing is cognitive dissonance because only a few months ago during peak covid, the same platforms ALLOWED incitement and continued to condone violence as said incitement lead to buildings being burned, properties destroyed and lives lost. And no legal action was taken.