3 ms·

Almost every regulation on business could be considered "at the expense of private property rights". That doesn't matter to anyone except libertarians. Likewis

Almost every regulation on business could be considered "at the expense of private property rights". That doesn't matter to anyone except libertarians. Likewise, any law could be called "blackmail", because they all threaten negative consequences if someone doesn't do what the government says, but that doesn't matter to anyone at all. Those aren't serious objections to any regulation. And it's ironic to call this "antithetical to free speech as a cultural phenomenon" when this would be a defense of free speech for 99% of the population. The rights of a few billionaires who own web companies shouldn't trump the rights of the public. Finally, where do you get the idea that companies simply couldn't exist if they didn't remove user content that doesn't violate a few regulations the law would allow (like spam, threats, obscenity, and copyright, which would all be clearly Constitutional content-based exceptions)? That reddit, for example, would have to shut down if they hadn't banned The_Donald or ChapoTrapHouse? That would be a fair objection, if you can support it.

defen 6y ago
> Finally, where do you get the idea that companies simply couldn't exist if they didn't remove user content that doesn't violate a few regulations the law would allow (like spam, threats, obscenity, and copyright, which would all be clearly Constitutional content-based exceptions)? So if I want to run a website with comments I need a lawyer to review each comment? Like how am I, a layman, supposed to determine whether a comment violates copyright or is actually fair use? Or whether it's a "true threat" as opposed to bluster ("Next person who comments about X is getting slapped")? What happens if I wrongly remove a comment?
- leereeves 6y ago
  How that's different from any other business? Businesses have to remove disruptive customers, fire employees, etc; there are rules about that; and somehow they manage. Probably there would be exceptions for personal non-commercial sites and even small businesses. There's plenty of room for compromise between the status quo and draconian rules that shut down every website.
SllX 6y ago
> Almost every regulation on business could be considered "at the expense of private property rights". That doesn't matter to anyone except libertarians. This is something that matters to anyone that owns or aspires to own property and assets: houses, vehicles, servers and other fixed assets, as well as the money in your bank and brokerage accounts. Our economy doesn’t exist without private property rights. > Likewise, any law could be called "blackmail", because they all threaten negative consequences if someone doesn't do what the government says, but that doesn't matter to anyone at all. The reason and intent behind a law matters in a democratic society if you prefer laws to be just rather than tyrannical in nature. Section 230 despite the political football it has become was actually a fairly reasonable piece of law. The courts may have come around to similar law through procedure, but by passing it as a statute from the legislature, it quickly resolved what the risks were to running a server other people could use as long as you made a good faith effort to moderate publicly accessible data which enabled the sort of risk-taking that made an interactive web possible. You would take this otherwise fine piece of legislature and smack private entities upside the head with it, and if you can’t see the problem with it, I can’t help you see it. > And it's ironic to call this "antithetical to free speech as a cultural phenomenon" when this would be a defense of free speech for 99% of the population. 99% is actually a reduction. What part of “Congress shall make no law etc.” is unclear? Generally when two parties have conflicting free speech interests, the property owner wins. That means the owner of the server prevails. You, as a private individual, can purchase your own server, and if you let me post to it, you can kick me off of it and I would have zero remedy. > The rights of a few billionaires who own web companies shouldn't trump the rights of the public. As I’ve just outlined, this is not zero sum. There are countless channels in which you can exercise your first amendment rights, but you are not entitled to do so on someone else’s property more than they allow. > Finally, where do you get the idea that companies simply couldn't exist Don’t put words in my mouth.

defen 6y ago

> Finally, where do you get the idea that companies simply couldn't exist if they didn't remove user content that doesn't violate a few regulations the law would allow (like spam, threats, obscenity, and copyright, which would all be clearly Constitutional content-based exceptions)? So if I want to run a website with comments I need a lawyer to review each comment? Like how am I, a layman, supposed to determine whether a comment violates copyright or is actually fair use? Or whether it's a "true threat" as opposed to bluster ("Next person who comments about X is getting slapped")? What happens if I wrongly remove a comment?

leereeves 6y ago
How that's different from any other business? Businesses have to remove disruptive customers, fire employees, etc; there are rules about that; and somehow they manage. Probably there would be exceptions for personal non-commercial sites and even small businesses. There's plenty of room for compromise between the status quo and draconian rules that shut down every website.

SllX 6y ago

> Almost every regulation on business could be considered "at the expense of private property rights". That doesn't matter to anyone except libertarians. This is something that matters to anyone that owns or aspires to own property and assets: houses, vehicles, servers and other fixed assets, as well as the money in your bank and brokerage accounts. Our economy doesn’t exist without private property rights. > Likewise, any law could be called "blackmail", because they all threaten negative consequences if someone doesn't do what the government says, but that doesn't matter to anyone at all. The reason and intent behind a law matters in a democratic society if you prefer laws to be just rather than tyrannical in nature. Section 230 despite the political football it has become was actually a fairly reasonable piece of law. The courts may have come around to similar law through procedure, but by passing it as a statute from the legislature, it quickly resolved what the risks were to running a server other people could use as long as you made a good faith effort to moderate publicly accessible data which enabled the sort of risk-taking that made an interactive web possible. You would take this otherwise fine piece of legislature and smack private entities upside the head with it, and if you can’t see the problem with it, I can’t help you see it. > And it's ironic to call this "antithetical to free speech as a cultural phenomenon" when this would be a defense of free speech for 99% of the population. 99% is actually a reduction. What part of “Congress shall make no law etc.” is unclear? Generally when two parties have conflicting free speech interests, the property owner wins. That means the owner of the server prevails. You, as a private individual, can purchase your own server, and if you let me post to it, you can kick me off of it and I would have zero remedy. > The rights of a few billionaires who own web companies shouldn't trump the rights of the public. As I’ve just outlined, this is not zero sum. There are countless channels in which you can exercise your first amendment rights, but you are not entitled to do so on someone else’s property more than they allow. > Finally, where do you get the idea that companies simply couldn't exist Don’t put words in my mouth.