2 ms·

The problem is that most people claiming they're free speech advocates are nothing of the sort. Their goal is compelled publication of their opinions, not free

The problem is that most people claiming they're free speech advocates are nothing of the sort. Their goal is compelled publication of their opinions, not free speech. They've just made the observation that they can work up a good mob when they claim it's about free speech. It's much harder to get that sort of self-righteous mob when they admit their real complaint is that some community won't let them come in and yell through a megaphone until everyone else goes deaf.

whatshisface 5y ago
Who has proposed compelled publication, and what form would that policy take? Perhaps they wish for the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (lasted from 1949-1987)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but there have been _widespread_ proposals that would require social media sites to carry speech that they object to. These proposals were so widespread in some GOP circles that they actually became state law in 2 states (Florida and Texas) before being struck down as being a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the first amendment for being compelled speech. Note that in both contexts "struck down" does not refer to a final ruling, but rather an injunction that will remain in place until the final disposition of the case. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-law-blocked/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-l... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida-social-media-law-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida... And the interpretation of the law as "compelling speech" is not just mine alone. The federal judge that issued the preliminary injunction in Florida described it this way: > The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253.113.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.37...
- chowells 5y ago
  Every single person who claims Twitter should not be allowed to ban their favorite person is suggesting compelled publication. Every single person who says YouTube isn't allowed to remove videos is advocating compelled publication. Every single person who says Facebook isn't allowed to remove anti-vax misinformation is demanding compelled publication. The list goes on and on. And there are a whole lot of them who claim to be doing it because they're free speech advocates.
jevoten 5y ago
As a free speech advocate, I'm opposed to this ridiculous banning* from a school library (Correction: curriculum. It remains available in the library, I believe) (even if it is for puritanical, not anti-semitic, reasons, as the minutes claim). > their real complaint is that some community won't let them come in The "community" is usually a giant multinational corporation like Google, Twitter, Facebook, or Amazon. I'm sure you can find some "free speech advocates" that complain when a neighborhood association denies them a protest permit, or an admin on a small forum bans them, but that's not exactly steel-manning their cause, is it? *While schools have a legitimate right to decide which books they'll stock in their libraries, this book is both already in their library, and important enough, that the shorthand of calling it a "ban" seems appropriate. They do claim they'll replace it with a book providing equivalent lessons, but that doesn't mean that this book isn't getting banned, just that (taking them at their word) their motives aren't anti-semitic.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
This is interesting when it comes to education. We have a few holdout Christian conservatives and they are sending their kids to schools where they are brainwashed in a way that they are completely culture shocked and traumatized. And now Muslims want their own schools too. Freedom looks simple on paper but remember that we live in a society where everyone has to get along. And screwing with people's childhood sets them back for life. You can never get it back.

whatshisface 5y ago

Who has proposed compelled publication, and what form would that policy take? Perhaps they wish for the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (lasted from 1949-1987)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

ncallaway 5y ago
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but there have been _widespread_ proposals that would require social media sites to carry speech that they object to. These proposals were so widespread in some GOP circles that they actually became state law in 2 states (Florida and Texas) before being struck down as being a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the first amendment for being compelled speech. Note that in both contexts "struck down" does not refer to a final ruling, but rather an injunction that will remain in place until the final disposition of the case. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-law-blocked/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-l... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida-social-media-law-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida... And the interpretation of the law as "compelling speech" is not just mine alone. The federal judge that issued the preliminary injunction in Florida described it this way: > The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253.113.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.37...
chowells 5y ago
Every single person who claims Twitter should not be allowed to ban their favorite person is suggesting compelled publication. Every single person who says YouTube isn't allowed to remove videos is advocating compelled publication. Every single person who says Facebook isn't allowed to remove anti-vax misinformation is demanding compelled publication. The list goes on and on. And there are a whole lot of them who claim to be doing it because they're free speech advocates.

jevoten 5y ago

As a free speech advocate, I'm opposed to this ridiculous banning* from a school library (Correction: curriculum. It remains available in the library, I believe) (even if it is for puritanical, not anti-semitic, reasons, as the minutes claim). > their real complaint is that some community won't let them come in The "community" is usually a giant multinational corporation like Google, Twitter, Facebook, or Amazon. I'm sure you can find some "free speech advocates" that complain when a neighborhood association denies them a protest permit, or an admin on a small forum bans them, but that's not exactly steel-manning their cause, is it? *While schools have a legitimate right to decide which books they'll stock in their libraries, this book is both already in their library, and important enough, that the shorthand of calling it a "ban" seems appropriate. They do claim they'll replace it with a book providing equivalent lessons, but that doesn't mean that this book isn't getting banned, just that (taking them at their word) their motives aren't anti-semitic.

AniseAbyss 5y ago

This is interesting when it comes to education. We have a few holdout Christian conservatives and they are sending their kids to schools where they are brainwashed in a way that they are completely culture shocked and traumatized. And now Muslims want their own schools too. Freedom looks simple on paper but remember that we live in a society where everyone has to get along. And screwing with people's childhood sets them back for life. You can never get it back.