7 ms·

> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. It's disheartening to see

> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. It's disheartening to see how many people have no clue what 'free speech' means when they use this argument online. Legal Definition of freedom of speech: : the right to express information, ideas, and opinions *free of government restrictions* based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution There are also things that are NOT considered protected speech. For example, you cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater and claim it's a free speech right. This falls under the "harm principle" exception. Fighting words is another example. Two things people need to remember when it comes to free speech: 1) It's not absolute, you still suffer the consequences of the things you say, and 2) It doesn't apply to privately owned locations, services or media. So, no, being banned from Twitter is not a violation of your free speech. No, Apple banning or blocking porn from within apps is not a violation of free speech. No, being arrested for threatening to kill someone is not a violation of your free speech.

throwaway3699 5y ago
This is completely incorrect. Free speech is a moral principle, and the First Amendment is but one legal implementation of said principle. The argument here is that large corporations should be restrained just like governments are (and for the same reasons, too).
- techrat 5y ago
  You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive? Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Party in my house is not equivalent to event in a public square My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people. They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.
    - techrat 5y ago
      Private property, of which corporations reside within and servers consist of, are not equivalent to an event in a public square, either. Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth. Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words. That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        public square means public access and public importance, it can be private property Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people. This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    They're an individual. Apple is a powerful corporation Completely different circumstances.
    - techrat 5y ago
      "Corporations are people." Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever. If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?
ravi-delia 5y ago
The "fire in a crowded theater" example originates from a Supreme Court case that was later largely overturned. Moreover, in some situations private institutions have been deemed public spaces, and as such speech within them at least partially protected by free speech. That doesn't apply to Twitter, or Apple, at least until a case makes it so, but it's not completely out of the question.
- techrat 5y ago
  > The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). Relevant (to my example) portion still applies and was not overturned. May seem like a nitpick but I do think it's an important distinction to make.
  - ravi-delia 5y ago
    It's absolutely not a nitpick, but does that example still apply? I was under the impression that the 'clear and present' danger had been extremely narrowed to 'absolutely clear (as in an actual plan) and present (with explicit time)'. My recollection might not be right, but I could have sworn I remember the very justice that wrote the fire in the theater example rolling it back bit by bit over the course of the next several cases.
Dylan16807 5y ago
That's the definition of protected free speech, not the definition of free speech. Don't be pedantic about the wrong term.
baobabKoodaa 5y ago
Americans, stop. The world doesn't revolve around you. There are other countries besides U.S.A. (shocker, I know). These other countries can also have free speech, even though they don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction (double shocker!). It turns out free speech is something larger than your little laws, who would've thought!

throwaway3699 5y ago

This is completely incorrect. Free speech is a moral principle, and the First Amendment is but one legal implementation of said principle. The argument here is that large corporations should be restrained just like governments are (and for the same reasons, too).

techrat 5y ago
You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive? Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Party in my house is not equivalent to event in a public square My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people. They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.
  - techrat 5y ago
    Private property, of which corporations reside within and servers consist of, are not equivalent to an event in a public square, either. Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth. Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words. That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      public square means public access and public importance, it can be private property Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people. This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.
- anoncake 5y ago
  They're an individual. Apple is a powerful corporation Completely different circumstances.
  - techrat 5y ago
    "Corporations are people." Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever. If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?

ravi-delia 5y ago

The "fire in a crowded theater" example originates from a Supreme Court case that was later largely overturned. Moreover, in some situations private institutions have been deemed public spaces, and as such speech within them at least partially protected by free speech. That doesn't apply to Twitter, or Apple, at least until a case makes it so, but it's not completely out of the question.

techrat 5y ago
> The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). Relevant (to my example) portion still applies and was not overturned. May seem like a nitpick but I do think it's an important distinction to make.
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  It's absolutely not a nitpick, but does that example still apply? I was under the impression that the 'clear and present' danger had been extremely narrowed to 'absolutely clear (as in an actual plan) and present (with explicit time)'. My recollection might not be right, but I could have sworn I remember the very justice that wrote the fire in the theater example rolling it back bit by bit over the course of the next several cases.

Dylan16807 5y ago

That's the definition of protected free speech, not the definition of free speech. Don't be pedantic about the wrong term.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

Americans, stop. The world doesn't revolve around you. There are other countries besides U.S.A. (shocker, I know). These other countries can also have free speech, even though they don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction (double shocker!). It turns out free speech is something larger than your little laws, who would've thought!