3 ms·
I have specifically said that they have no obligations. But if they silence an opinion because they don't like it they don't adhere to the principle of freedom
by raxxorraxor 5y ago
I have specifically said that they have no obligations. But if they silence an opinion because they don't like it they don't adhere to the principle of freedom of speech.
I don't think social media platforms have any legal obligation to allow anyone to state anything. It was a culture that had formed on the net in most places. I has no relation to the law or the US first amendment in any way. It was a foundational rule for the exchange of ideas and that always requires freedom of speech.
Also, almost every institution that want intellectual exchange has to adhere to the principle because it is a fundamental part of dialectic. Many educational institutions are falling short here lately, but at least most are improving again. But that is a completely different topic.
People that silence others without a justification are rightfully looked down upon in my personal opinion because they are not capable of intellectual exchange. And these ideas are also enshrined in human rights for a reason, although these are sadly also not really legally binding.
- oneoff786 5y agoYou cannot require a party to facilitate free speech of another party without creating restrictions on their speech. That is the whole point.
- raxxorraxor 5y agoI think that is wrong.