3 ms·

> Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian That's not what the first amendment is. The first am

> Amusing that you think state enforcement of the first amendment on a "neutral platform" is authoritarian That's not what the first amendment is. The first amendment ONLY applies to the government. The fact that so many on hacker news continue to not understand this simple fact no matter how many times it's explained is absolutely mind-boggling. You can complain about Facebook and Twitter's policies as being dumb or bad, fine, but regardless of your opinion on them, they have nothing to do with the first amendment. None. The first amendment has NEVER meant that private groups are obligated to carry your speech. Even if Facebook was explicitly discriminating in the open against one side, that would be entirely within their rights. Maybe that would be a bad thing that you could argue against, but it would have nothing to do with the Constitution. edit: also, what does "neutral platform" even mean? Oh, I'm sure FB and Twitter make some claims to 'neutrality' or 'lack of bias', somewhere, but what legal weight or meaning does that have? None whatsoever. Or are you trying to suggest that if tomorrow Zuckerberg announced, "we're going to be the biggest online social platform for Marxists only" this would make it okay in your eyes?

vineyardmike 5y ago
So, I’m not OP. I know what the 1st amendment is as you defined. BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. While the freedom technically only applies to freedom from government, it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. I mean, that actually does potentially apply there, assuming it's a public school. In practice, speech there does tend to be limited anyway, but there have absolutely been first amendment court cases about what schools are and aren't allowed to restrict. > it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American. Not really, though. Everyone gets that even if you send in a letter to the editor, that doesn't make them obligated to reprint it. Almost every other kind of company, people already accept that they aren't obligated to work with you or allow you to publish what you want. Everyone's seen those signs about, "we reserve the right to refuse service blah blah blah" hanging around all kinds of retail stores. In fact, the people complaining the loudest here -- conservatives -- are usually the people saying, "government should stay out of business, let businesses do whatever they want". It's only now that this principle works against them that they're finding that suddenly they don't agree anymore, and they would rather the government micromanage business policies to their political advantage. It's naked partisanship.
- anjbe 5y ago
  A counterpoint to that is that in American thought, freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak. An individual or a private company generally can’t be forced to promulgate opinions they don’t wish to, thanks to the protections of the First Amendment.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  True, but that belief has never been extended to the idea that newspapers are required to carry op-eds or letters to the editor chosen via coin-flip instead of the editor, or that private stores with message tack-boards are obligated to host flyers for the local Klan because they host flyers for the local yoga instructors. The back-stop to private institutions putting their thumb on the scales of open public discourse is, traditionally, the public... the public that ceases to read the papers that are too biased, or boycotts the coffee shop because it has a political agenda out of alignment with the agenda of most of the local community.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Free speech is not the first amendment, the first amendment is not free speech. >it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free Seems more like the commonly held belief in America is that MY speech is free but your speech maybe shouldn't be. The school children might have a differing opinion on the teacher's "right to free speech" after the teacher calls them "stupid cunts". Turns out that even the "free speech" platforms are not so free: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr... And of course, the head of the Republican party is also against free speech when they don't like the speech: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-24/column-trump-revives-banning-flag-burning https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-24/column-trum...
chrisco255 5y ago
Get this: no it doesn't. Not only can the government force your business to bake a cake for anyone regardless of sexuality, they can force you to hire anyone regardless of all sorts of constantly evolving criteria. Landlords do not have a right to prevent tenants from placing political signs, flags, bumper stickers, etc in their windows or yards. They do not have a right to enter a tenant's property without notice. They don't have a right to tap their phone lines or end their lease just because they're Trump supporters, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly on these things. Businesses are subject to additional restrictions on speech and free association that people are not.

vineyardmike 5y ago

So, I’m not OP. I know what the 1st amendment is as you defined. BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. While the freedom technically only applies to freedom from government, it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> BUT the idea of free speech is heavily ingrained in American culture. School children complain about free speech when their teacher asks them to be nice - it’s a freedom learned from a very young age. I mean, that actually does potentially apply there, assuming it's a public school. In practice, speech there does tend to be limited anyway, but there have absolutely been first amendment court cases about what schools are and aren't allowed to restrict. > it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free, which is applied even on places like fb or Twitter. The idea (even if not the practice) that speech is protected and neutral in all forums of society is VERY American. Not really, though. Everyone gets that even if you send in a letter to the editor, that doesn't make them obligated to reprint it. Almost every other kind of company, people already accept that they aren't obligated to work with you or allow you to publish what you want. Everyone's seen those signs about, "we reserve the right to refuse service blah blah blah" hanging around all kinds of retail stores. In fact, the people complaining the loudest here -- conservatives -- are usually the people saying, "government should stay out of business, let businesses do whatever they want". It's only now that this principle works against them that they're finding that suddenly they don't agree anymore, and they would rather the government micromanage business policies to their political advantage. It's naked partisanship.
anjbe 5y ago
A counterpoint to that is that in American thought, freedom of speech includes the right to not be compelled to speak. An individual or a private company generally can’t be forced to promulgate opinions they don’t wish to, thanks to the protections of the First Amendment.
shadowgovt 5y ago
True, but that belief has never been extended to the idea that newspapers are required to carry op-eds or letters to the editor chosen via coin-flip instead of the editor, or that private stores with message tack-boards are obligated to host flyers for the local Klan because they host flyers for the local yoga instructors. The back-stop to private institutions putting their thumb on the scales of open public discourse is, traditionally, the public... the public that ceases to read the papers that are too biased, or boycotts the coffee shop because it has a political agenda out of alignment with the agenda of most of the local community.
Hamuko 5y ago
Free speech is not the first amendment, the first amendment is not free speech. >it’s a commonly held belief in America that everyone’s speech is free and should be free Seems more like the commonly held belief in America is that MY speech is free but your speech maybe shouldn't be. The school children might have a differing opinion on the teacher's "right to free speech" after the teacher calls them "stupid cunts". Turns out that even the "free speech" platforms are not so free: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr... And of course, the head of the Republican party is also against free speech when they don't like the speech: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-24/column-trump-revives-banning-flag-burning https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-24/column-trum...

chrisco255 5y ago

Get this: no it doesn't. Not only can the government force your business to bake a cake for anyone regardless of sexuality, they can force you to hire anyone regardless of all sorts of constantly evolving criteria. Landlords do not have a right to prevent tenants from placing political signs, flags, bumper stickers, etc in their windows or yards. They do not have a right to enter a tenant's property without notice. They don't have a right to tap their phone lines or end their lease just because they're Trump supporters, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled quite clearly on these things. Businesses are subject to additional restrictions on speech and free association that people are not.