4 ms·

"Corporations are people." Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. There is no legal precedent that requi

"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?

anoncake 5y ago
> Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. Obviously. > 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? No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things. > 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. So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are. > 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. Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally). > I have a right to say "No." Absolutely. > So do the owners of Hacker News. I think so. It's no real danger to free speech. We're talking about Apple though.
- techrat 5y ago
  I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech. Imagine that. Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech. > Imagine that. Good for you? > Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position. Not, size, power. No company should be permitted to restrict free speech. But most aren't able to anyway. Treating people and companies differently is not hypocritical, they are fundamentally different kinds of entities.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position. How? What definition of hypocritical applies here? And the goal isn't to impose morals, the goal is to treat it more and more like a public space.
throwaway3699 5y ago
> "Corporations are people." That is a useful legal fiction only because saying otherwise infringes on the rights of the people within those corporations. It is not useful for dictating public policy for billions of people. > 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. This assumes that freedom of speech is a positive right. It's not. It's a negative right. We are not asking Apple or Google to speak, we are asking them not to censor. There is a difference.

anoncake 5y ago

> Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. Obviously. > 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? No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things. > 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. So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are. > 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. Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally). > I have a right to say "No." Absolutely. > So do the owners of Hacker News. I think so. It's no real danger to free speech. We're talking about Apple though.

techrat 5y ago
I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech. Imagine that. Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
- anoncake 5y ago
  > I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech. > Imagine that. Good for you? > Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position. Not, size, power. No company should be permitted to restrict free speech. But most aren't able to anyway. Treating people and companies differently is not hypocritical, they are fundamentally different kinds of entities.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position. How? What definition of hypocritical applies here? And the goal isn't to impose morals, the goal is to treat it more and more like a public space.

throwaway3699 5y ago

> "Corporations are people." That is a useful legal fiction only because saying otherwise infringes on the rights of the people within those corporations. It is not useful for dictating public policy for billions of people. > 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. This assumes that freedom of speech is a positive right. It's not. It's a negative right. We are not asking Apple or Google to speak, we are asking them not to censor. There is a difference.