3 ms·

The First Amendment protects us from the government censoring speech. It is not a prohibition on private companies removing content or private citizens demandin

The First Amendment protects us from the government censoring speech. It is not a prohibition on private companies removing content or private citizens demanding the removal of speech they disapprove of. The fact that this discourse can happen in the open is proof that free speech exists and is in force. If the Biden administration could control speech they could ban anyone suggesting anything other than the official position of the government. Clearly this is not happening. Likewise, if the government could control speech they could choose to force Neil Young to place his music back on Spotify for the sake of trade. This is not happening.

ohCh6zos 5y ago
It is disturb that a least one person in the administration seems to have encouraged this.
null0pointer 5y ago
Once again we have someone here conflating the first amendement with free speech. Free speech is a principle, the first amendment works in service of it.
- Moto7451 5y ago
  The GP’s comment is that “This is the latest attack in an ongoing war on free speech. We are losing our freedoms.” What freedoms can possible be referred to other than the First Amendment? This is the standard language of someone applying the First Amendment to private citizens and companies.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Are your freedoms only those narrowly carved out in the constitution or do you in fact enjoy many unenumerated freedoms?
    - Moto7451 5y ago
      This specific conflict is involving Americans and the American arm of Spotify. Those unenumerated freedoms are supported by the laws of the country. If you want to devolve into purely hypotheticals you’re going to find yourself on weak legs because the ultimate argument ends up being that “Joe Rogan speech is denying my freedom from hearing arguments I do not agree with.” These specific issues have been long settled by the rule of law. Being contrarian about this is neither productive or practical. Where does my freedom end and yours begin? If I am infringing on what you feel is your freedom, where is that line? Do I get to play my loud music at 2AM when you have an early morning? Is it ok if you are sleeping in the next day so it doesn’t really matter that I’m keeping you up? When do these ultimate and unlimited unenumerated freedoms fall apart? When they infringe on what society considers to be the normative freedoms we all get to enjoy. Spotify gets to run their private business as they see fit because that is their freedom to do as long as they do not break a law or infringe upon your freedoms. Your perceived freedoms cannot infringe upon their freedoms.
      - peteradio 5y ago
        I made no claim that Spotify is without right to do as it pleases per contractual obligation. I do make the claim that freedoms can be eroded legally, such as freedom to enjoy an alternative opinion.
thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
Nobody is talking about the first amendment or the government. The topic is censorship. Please, try to focus.
- Moto7451 5y ago
  As I mentioned in the other comment, I was replying to someone explicitly stating that “we are losing out freedoms.” That is not a censorship argument. Censorship can happen without your individual liberties being attacked.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

ohCh6zos 5y ago

It is disturb that a least one person in the administration seems to have encouraged this.

null0pointer 5y ago

Once again we have someone here conflating the first amendement with free speech. Free speech is a principle, the first amendment works in service of it.

Moto7451 5y ago
The GP’s comment is that “This is the latest attack in an ongoing war on free speech. We are losing our freedoms.” What freedoms can possible be referred to other than the First Amendment? This is the standard language of someone applying the First Amendment to private citizens and companies.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Are your freedoms only those narrowly carved out in the constitution or do you in fact enjoy many unenumerated freedoms?
  - Moto7451 5y ago
    This specific conflict is involving Americans and the American arm of Spotify. Those unenumerated freedoms are supported by the laws of the country. If you want to devolve into purely hypotheticals you’re going to find yourself on weak legs because the ultimate argument ends up being that “Joe Rogan speech is denying my freedom from hearing arguments I do not agree with.” These specific issues have been long settled by the rule of law. Being contrarian about this is neither productive or practical. Where does my freedom end and yours begin? If I am infringing on what you feel is your freedom, where is that line? Do I get to play my loud music at 2AM when you have an early morning? Is it ok if you are sleeping in the next day so it doesn’t really matter that I’m keeping you up? When do these ultimate and unlimited unenumerated freedoms fall apart? When they infringe on what society considers to be the normative freedoms we all get to enjoy. Spotify gets to run their private business as they see fit because that is their freedom to do as long as they do not break a law or infringe upon your freedoms. Your perceived freedoms cannot infringe upon their freedoms.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      I made no claim that Spotify is without right to do as it pleases per contractual obligation. I do make the claim that freedoms can be eroded legally, such as freedom to enjoy an alternative opinion.

thatjoeoverthr 5y ago

Nobody is talking about the first amendment or the government. The topic is censorship. Please, try to focus.

Moto7451 5y ago
As I mentioned in the other comment, I was replying to someone explicitly stating that “we are losing out freedoms.” That is not a censorship argument. Censorship can happen without your individual liberties being attacked.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]