3 ms·

I guess the question will come down to whose free speech rights are more important, the end-users' or the corporate entity's?

valine 5y ago
The 1st amendment in the US constitution prevents the government from stifling speech. Being banned on privately owned and operated social media is not a violation of your right to free speech.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  The US Constitution only prohibits the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about preventing a privately owned and operated company from doing so.
  - ppseafield 5y ago
    Yes. The constitution doesn't include Section 230 either. Other laws besides the constitution also regulate the activities of privately owned companies. This doesn't have anything to do with the government not being able to abridge the free speech of its citizens.
- spazrunaway 5y ago
  Wow, I've never heard this take before. I'm in awe at the immensity of your brain. It actually is a terrible violation of my right to free speech. For those of us with a deeper understanding of rights than the XKCD "le show you the door" comic, we're concerned with people being denied service (in an entirely arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent manner often based on race and political opinion) from what are effectively essential services and utilities that they may rely on for their livelihoods. I don't want my power, or phone service, or bank accounts disconnected because somebody at the SPLC called me a racist; huh, gee, those aren't mentioned in the 1st amendment either, even through they're often operated by private companies. And this sort of tactical constitutionalism really wears thin when the very same people turn around and demand that the NFL respect Colin Kapernick's "free speech rights", or wax poetic about how wonderful it is that opposition forces in Syria can use American technologies like Twitter and Signal to coordinate and speak freely - then claim it's also wonderful for these platforms to censor so-called racists here in the US, or to cooperate with the FBI to jail political dissidents who do such terrible things as loitering in public buildings.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Besides breaking the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and poisoning the forum, they have the side effect of discrediting the view you're arguing for—which isn't in your interests. And if your view is right, that means you're discrediting the truth as well—which isn't in any of our interests. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- ttt0 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

valine 5y ago

The 1st amendment in the US constitution prevents the government from stifling speech. Being banned on privately owned and operated social media is not a violation of your right to free speech.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
The US Constitution only prohibits the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about preventing a privately owned and operated company from doing so.
- ppseafield 5y ago
  Yes. The constitution doesn't include Section 230 either. Other laws besides the constitution also regulate the activities of privately owned companies. This doesn't have anything to do with the government not being able to abridge the free speech of its citizens.
spazrunaway 5y ago
Wow, I've never heard this take before. I'm in awe at the immensity of your brain. It actually is a terrible violation of my right to free speech. For those of us with a deeper understanding of rights than the XKCD "le show you the door" comic, we're concerned with people being denied service (in an entirely arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent manner often based on race and political opinion) from what are effectively essential services and utilities that they may rely on for their livelihoods. I don't want my power, or phone service, or bank accounts disconnected because somebody at the SPLC called me a racist; huh, gee, those aren't mentioned in the 1st amendment either, even through they're often operated by private companies. And this sort of tactical constitutionalism really wears thin when the very same people turn around and demand that the NFL respect Colin Kapernick's "free speech rights", or wax poetic about how wonderful it is that opposition forces in Syria can use American technologies like Twitter and Signal to coordinate and speak freely - then claim it's also wonderful for these platforms to censor so-called racists here in the US, or to cooperate with the FBI to jail political dissidents who do such terrible things as loitering in public buildings.
- dang 5y ago
  Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Besides breaking the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and poisoning the forum, they have the side effect of discrediting the view you're arguing for—which isn't in your interests. And if your view is right, that means you're discrediting the truth as well—which isn't in any of our interests. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
ttt0 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...