5 ms·
It used to be that free speech was an ideal to strive for and not just a law companies could hide behind as private entities; the argument that the first amende
by vimy 6y ago
It used to be that free speech was an ideal to strive for and not just a law companies could hide behind as private entities; the argument that the first amendement only applies to the government. Up until 2016 Silicon Valley was full of libertarians fully believing in free speech principles. The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. It seems things have changed.
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
- notatrumper 6y agoYes, things have changed, unfortunately.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThe extent to which commenters don't understand the principle of free speech is truly shocking here. > The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. Gee, I wonder what the difference is between this and Apple banning an app on their own store? Truly, it is a stupefying mystery.
- vimy 6y agoI'm talking about free speech in general. Will the ACLU today defend Trump supporters? No, they won't. But they used to defend _actual_ nazis. Similarly, Apple would have never banned this app 10 years ago.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago> I'm talking about free speech in general. No, you're not. > they used to defend _actual_ nazis On public streets. Are Trump supporters fighting for their right to peacefully march on public streets now?
- vimy 6y agoI _am_ talking about free speech in general. There has been in shift in how mainstream media and politicians (and companies) view free speech. Some newspapers and politicians are even calling for the abolishment of the first first amendment. Unimaginable 10 years ago. Case in point: >The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
- TulliusCicero 6y ago> I _am_ talking about free speech in general. No, you're not. Historically, the principle of free speech was never about "businesses have to let you say whatever you want inside their property", because that's ridiculous. Nobody was ever arguing that Nazis should be able to hold rallies inside McDonald's restaurants. Nobody was arguing that newspapers are obligated to reprint every letter to the editor they receive, rather than picking and choosing. It's pretty much always been about government interference, which is why cases like that were about public spaces, not private ones. Acting like free speech is about what businesses let you say on their property is ahistorical, and reveals that the speaker is either ignorant of this history, or being deliberately disingenuous.
- vimy 6y agoYou keep missing my point. Stop focussing on the specifics of this case, that's not relevant to my argument. Tech in 2010: We don't agree with what they're saying but we believe in their right to say it. -> The American ideal of free speech. Tech in 2020: Ban them all! ACLU in 1978: We defend everyone. ACLU in 2020: We defend people who think like us. A shift in society. That is my point. Historically free speech was seen as an ideal to strive for. Now it's considered a bad thing.
- DenisM 6y ago> Gee, I wonder what the difference is between this and Apple banning an app on their own store? Truly, it is a stupefying mystery. Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- TulliusCicero 6y agoAlright, that's fair.