6 ms·

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say it” is a maxim of free speech — and a bold declaration of the exact opposite of your message: if we want a free society, we have a moral duty to aid the freedom of others — not suppress it.

hnhg 6y ago
I guess you have a problem with news editorial decisions then? For example, Fox News have a strong bias running through their programming. Isn't that a kind of implicit censorship of ideas?
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.
  - GVIrish 6y ago
    > but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
    - smaryjerry 6y ago
      You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast. The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
      - GVIrish 6y ago
        > It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. What particular laws are you referring to? > This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization. Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.
tshaddox 6y ago
Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about. Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal. Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control). Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to. As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's. It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B. Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech. In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").
Bud 6y ago
We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though. The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  Twitter allows the CCP to post pro-genocide propaganda about how they “emancipate” the minds of Uyghur women. Disney filmed Mulan next to a concentration camp where people are butchered for organs and thanked the CCP for their generous support. These are actual acts supporting a genocidal regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. The “Nazis” of modern America are solidly on the left — and generally the people calling for censorship. Twitter’s support of pro-genocide propaganda from the CCP shows they’re definitely unqualified to act as a censor.
- esja 6y ago
  What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.

hnhg 6y ago

I guess you have a problem with news editorial decisions then? For example, Fox News have a strong bias running through their programming. Isn't that a kind of implicit censorship of ideas?

smaryjerry 6y ago
Opinions are biased and specific people and programs are biased on Fox News and many other channels, but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make. This makes Fox News as reliable as all other stations. People often post memes about Fox News or CNN saying something wildly stupid but don’t realize they are posting a literal opinion from an opinion show not news from a news show.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  > but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast. The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.
    - GVIrish 6y ago
      > It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. What particular laws are you referring to? > This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization. Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.

tshaddox 6y ago

Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your right to be on CNN tonight.” These things are still forms of speech, of course, and yet their exercise does in fact preclude others from likewise exercising. It doesn’t make sense do defend every person’s right to be trending on Twitter.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about. Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal. Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control). Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).
vladvasiliu 6y ago
Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to. As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's. It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B. Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech. In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").

Bud 6y ago

We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though. The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
Twitter allows the CCP to post pro-genocide propaganda about how they “emancipate” the minds of Uyghur women. Disney filmed Mulan next to a concentration camp where people are butchered for organs and thanked the CCP for their generous support. These are actual acts supporting a genocidal regime engaged in ethnic cleansing. The “Nazis” of modern America are solidly on the left — and generally the people calling for censorship. Twitter’s support of pro-genocide propaganda from the CCP shows they’re definitely unqualified to act as a censor.
esja 6y ago
What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.