4 ms·

It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly

by LanceH 6y ago

It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.

Alupis 6y ago
> It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
  - Alupis 6y ago
    You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      You're deliberately mixing "Twitter bans me" with "Government imprisons me" and pretending they are the same thing so you can describe it as "private companies are allowed to limit free speech don't you see!" which is a misleading and incorrect description. You said "When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!" and that is explicitly /not/ what limiting free speech means; a) that's not the Government limiting Free Speech, that's the Government doing something else, and b) a private company limiting your speech isn't a private company limiting Free Speech, it's a private company doing something else. And Free Speech is too important for that equivocation to pass uncontested. > "Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out." I didn't point out a reason the Government cannot limit free speech, I pointed out that Twitter banning you is not anyone limiting Free Speech. The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Jeff Bezos cannot lock you up for writing a blog post critical of Amazon or making a credible bomb threat, but a government could (potentially) lock you up for writing a blog post critical of the government and can do so for making a credible bomb threat. Your reason appears to be "the Government doesn't want to limit your Free Speech because it would make them look bad, so they lean on Twitter to ban people instead" - well I would far far prefer that, because having your Twitter account banned is less bad than being imprisoned, and more easily recovered from by posting somewhere else. You trying to claim this is limiting your Free Speech trivialises what it means for people in other countries to be imprisoned for being critical of the party in power (whether you call that a government or not). > "What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now" That's what a government is. > "and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. Again no; Twitter banning your account is a kind of censorship but not the same kind of censorship, even if they were paid by the President himself. You being arrested for having a Twitter account would be censorship, but it wouldn't be Twitter doing the arresting. The reason it's not (the same kind of / as bad) censorship is that you can make your own Twitter with blackjack and hookers and say "I love $politicalParty" all you like on it, and if everyone does that then Twitter fades into irrelevance. Just because Twitter is large and popular doesn't mean Twitter is obliged to provide service to everyone - subject to discrimination laws. If you phone up your local talk radio and they don't air your phonecall, that's not censorship.
      - LanceH 6y ago
        Twitter banning an account at the behest of the government is absolutely censorship. Sure Twitter is free to ban me. But Twitter is free to allow me to speak without retribution from the government. The government has no business threatening companies to silence people.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        Trying to head off this response is why I added "(the same kind of / as bad) censorship". The government has no business threatening companies to silence people, but if they do threaten companies to silence people that's not the same as arresting you for criticising the government, it's not the same thing as limiting Free Speech(tm). Twitter is free to allow you to speak without retribution from the government, but compelling Twitter to let you speak, to provide you a service you aren't paying for, is another matter again. Where the lines fall on that is up for debate, in arguments about whether large enough sites are like public services, or should be public services, whether websites are blind conduits for information or responsible for the content on them, and the fact that all that is being argued is evidence that it hasn't been settled in a dystopian way. If I threw $10 to ICQ to delete your account that you haven't used in a decade, you could still argue "censorship! you have no business doing that!" and be correct, but any point about it being a limit on your free speech would be much much more obviously weak.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        You seem to be stuffing a lot of straw men into your response. That, or you think I'm making an argument that I have yet to write. I have no idea where Twitter came into all this, nor does it matter what people in other countries consider "Free Speech" or not. > The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution and the US Government (we often forget HN is an international community) - but no, the Government here cannot make it illegal to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. No, the US Government (local, state, federal) cannot put you in prison for voicing opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be. Yes, private organization can deplatform, censor, and silence any opinions they disagree with. What we clearly have here is a case of a political party, in control of Congress, seeking a way to circumvent the US Constitution (specifically the 1st Amendment) by nakedly intimidating private organizations into enacting censorship on their behalf, to be perpetrated against said political party's political enemies. That is flatly wrong, and should be viewed as Government attempting to censor political enemies... because that is what it is! Straw Men be damned...
ineptech 6y ago
Huh? How is this intimidation? It's not like spreading information to its viewers is something Fox was doing illegally or surreptitiously; it's their whole business. However many people they reached, I would think they'd be proud of the answer?
- chrismcb 6y ago
  Did you read the letter that was written? It isn't the question about how many listened their were. It was the rest of the letter.

by LanceH 6y ago

Alupis 6y ago

> It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation Bingo! When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!

jodrellblank 6y ago
That isn't what "free speech" means. Free Speech means the government won't imprison or execute you. Private companies operate private services, they can kick you off for saying "bread" if they want and it's not "limiting free speech".
- Alupis 6y ago
  You see the issue here then, right? Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out. So... short of any alternative tools, the Government sets out to intimidate private companies into censoring on the Government's behalf. What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. That doesn't sit very well with me.. regardless of which party is attempting to censor which.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    You're deliberately mixing "Twitter bans me" with "Government imprisons me" and pretending they are the same thing so you can describe it as "private companies are allowed to limit free speech don't you see!" which is a misleading and incorrect description. You said "When these CEO's enact new policies that censors "Right-Think", it'll be totally okay because it's not the Government limiting Free Speech - private companies are allowed to limit Free Speech, don't you see!" and that is explicitly /not/ what limiting free speech means; a) that's not the Government limiting Free Speech, that's the Government doing something else, and b) a private company limiting your speech isn't a private company limiting Free Speech, it's a private company doing something else. And Free Speech is too important for that equivocation to pass uncontested. > "Government cannot limit your Free Speech, for the reason I (and you) pointed out." I didn't point out a reason the Government cannot limit free speech, I pointed out that Twitter banning you is not anyone limiting Free Speech. The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Jeff Bezos cannot lock you up for writing a blog post critical of Amazon or making a credible bomb threat, but a government could (potentially) lock you up for writing a blog post critical of the government and can do so for making a credible bomb threat. Your reason appears to be "the Government doesn't want to limit your Free Speech because it would make them look bad, so they lean on Twitter to ban people instead" - well I would far far prefer that, because having your Twitter account banned is less bad than being imprisoned, and more easily recovered from by posting somewhere else. You trying to claim this is limiting your Free Speech trivialises what it means for people in other countries to be imprisoned for being critical of the party in power (whether you call that a government or not). > "What more... it's not "The Government" - it's a political party that happens to be in power right now" That's what a government is. > "and is seeking to censor the other political party through means of intimidation and coercion of private companies. Again no; Twitter banning your account is a kind of censorship but not the same kind of censorship, even if they were paid by the President himself. You being arrested for having a Twitter account would be censorship, but it wouldn't be Twitter doing the arresting. The reason it's not (the same kind of / as bad) censorship is that you can make your own Twitter with blackjack and hookers and say "I love $politicalParty" all you like on it, and if everyone does that then Twitter fades into irrelevance. Just because Twitter is large and popular doesn't mean Twitter is obliged to provide service to everyone - subject to discrimination laws. If you phone up your local talk radio and they don't air your phonecall, that's not censorship.
    - LanceH 6y ago
      Twitter banning an account at the behest of the government is absolutely censorship. Sure Twitter is free to ban me. But Twitter is free to allow me to speak without retribution from the government. The government has no business threatening companies to silence people.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        Trying to head off this response is why I added "(the same kind of / as bad) censorship". The government has no business threatening companies to silence people, but if they do threaten companies to silence people that's not the same as arresting you for criticising the government, it's not the same thing as limiting Free Speech(tm). Twitter is free to allow you to speak without retribution from the government, but compelling Twitter to let you speak, to provide you a service you aren't paying for, is another matter again. Where the lines fall on that is up for debate, in arguments about whether large enough sites are like public services, or should be public services, whether websites are blind conduits for information or responsible for the content on them, and the fact that all that is being argued is evidence that it hasn't been settled in a dystopian way. If I threw $10 to ICQ to delete your account that you haven't used in a decade, you could still argue "censorship! you have no business doing that!" and be correct, but any point about it being a limit on your free speech would be much much more obviously weak.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      You seem to be stuffing a lot of straw men into your response. That, or you think I'm making an argument that I have yet to write. I have no idea where Twitter came into all this, nor does it matter what people in other countries consider "Free Speech" or not. > The Government absolutely /can/ limit your Free Speech, that's why it's important and scary - of all organizations which exist only the Government can make it illegal for you to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution and the US Government (we often forget HN is an international community) - but no, the Government here cannot make it illegal to publish a book or imprison you for writing a critical newspaper article. No, the US Government (local, state, federal) cannot put you in prison for voicing opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be. Yes, private organization can deplatform, censor, and silence any opinions they disagree with. What we clearly have here is a case of a political party, in control of Congress, seeking a way to circumvent the US Constitution (specifically the 1st Amendment) by nakedly intimidating private organizations into enacting censorship on their behalf, to be perpetrated against said political party's political enemies. That is flatly wrong, and should be viewed as Government attempting to censor political enemies... because that is what it is! Straw Men be damned...

ineptech 6y ago

Huh? How is this intimidation? It's not like spreading information to its viewers is something Fox was doing illegally or surreptitiously; it's their whole business. However many people they reached, I would think they'd be proud of the answer?

chrismcb 6y ago
Did you read the letter that was written? It isn't the question about how many listened their were. It was the rest of the letter.