5 ms·
>1a issues have gotten a lot more complicated Nothing ever has, or could be, simpler than the concept of free speech and free thought.
by StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>1a issues have gotten a lot more complicated
Nothing ever has, or could be, simpler than the concept of free speech and free thought.
- oneoff786 4y agoSo can I kick people out of my business for saying obscene shit?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ralusek 4y agoAssuming your business is a private entity, then obviously the answer is yes...
- oneoff786 4y agoCan I prevent people from publishing content I don’t like in my magazine?
- ralusek 4y agoYes. And you can prevent whoever you want from posting on your website. Legally, social media platforms are under no obligation to uphold free speech. There are two discussions happening about this, though. One is simply a critique of the social media platforms, i.e. they may be legally entitled to do this, but is it actually the right way to behave? The second is a question regarding whether or not it should be legal. To be clear: it is legal. But given that these are functionally monopolistic entities, and they do operate as the de facto town square, should they be made to accommodate broader speech?
- oneoff786 4y agoOk let’s skip ahead. Can I, as an ISP, refuse to show you pages I don’t agree with?
- ralusek 4y agoI think ISPs are supposedly regulated by net neutrality. But again, are you trying to talk to me about what is legal, or what should be legal, or what should be encouraged? Because those 3 aren't the same, and I'm a little bit annoyed at the fact that you seem to be leading me to your point an inch at a time with the implication that I haven't bothered to think this through.
- oneoff786 4y agoYou jumped on a response to a claim that free speech is the easiest concept. Kinda signed up for that one. The person who claimed it seems to have gotten it wrong at step 0 however, which is kind of funny.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoWell, it still is an extremely easy concept. The examples you gave about businesses and magazines is that they can decide to not adhere to freedom of speech and they aren't obliged to do so legally. If they ban content the dislike they are not practicing freedom of speech. Still simple.
- oneoff786 4y agoBut you’re ignoring their own freedom of speech. If party A wants to voice something through party B, and party B does not want to express it, their freedoms of speech are in conflict. You cannot resolve this without one party not being allowed their freedom of speech. And if the answer is it’s always in party B’s court, then you make the situation very difficult when it comes to social media and even direct messaging platforms between two private entities.
- 4y ago
- StanislavPetrov 4y agoOf course you can, as long as you don't receive any public money or use any public infrastructure or funding whatsoever.
- oneoff786 4y agoSo a public school can’t remove you for shouting racial slurs?
- pharrington 4y agoMoney itself is public infrastructure. addendum: Also, this conversation is taking place over the internet, via devices that use grid electricity.
- VyperCard 4y agoWhich is just an extremist point of view that will cost you your democracy soon.
- tonguez 4y agoyea god forbid the poors are allowed to talk amongst themselves