5 ms·

Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed

Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section? Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people? If you want free speech, go to the government and/or host your own, nobody is stopping you from having your own megaphone on the street corner.

mikecoles 4y ago
Businesses have been forced to bake cakes. Precedents have been set.
- notreallyserio 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not true. If it's the case I'm thinking of the result was exactly the opposite. Do you have more details on what case you're referring to?
- wfhordie 4y ago
  The Supreme Court overruled that about four years ago. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
  - mikecoles 4y ago
    If you're murdered and the court finds you shouldn't have been murdered, that doesn't help you out much.
- bediger4000 4y ago
  You know that went the other way? The precedent is that businesses don't have to bake cakes based on religious viewpoints. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 Precedents have been set exactly the other way. This law looks like conservatives having a hissy fit that this time around market forces are keeping them from dominating all conversations, so they're making laws to enforce their social dominance.
TexanFeller 4y ago
Businesses are not people and shouldn’t have the same rights. Hard no from me on the concept of corporate personhood.
- krapp 4y ago
  You don't believe businesses should have the right to free speech, because they are not a person. Fair enough. Do you believe religious groups should have the right to free speech? Religion isn't a person. If not free speech, what about the right of assembly? What about the press? The press isn't a person, either. What about political parties? What about your family? What is the limit? Two people? Four? How many people does one need to gather together under common interests before their rights are nullified, and replaced by some other set of rights governing "entities" like businesses, religions, political parties, etc? There's a very good reason the First Amendment refers to "the people" and not individual persons - because it makes no sense to deny the existence of rights in aggregate. Yes, the press has rights, despite being an abstract entity, because it - along with religious groups, political parties and businesses, represent collections of people, and thus is synonymous with the rights of the sum of the individuals making up those entities.
0xy 4y ago
"Just build it yourself" is a common lie often used by people who either don't know of or don't care that even domain registrars and backbone internet providers have been forced into censorship by activists. Given you might be in a position where nobody will sell you bandwidth and nobody will register your domain name, "just build it yourself" becomes "just build an entire network infrastructure provider, domain registrar, hosting company and website". Don't forget that Parler, a relatively milquetoast 'free speech' website, was kicked off some pretty core internet infrastructure and was denied access by dozens of others. "Just build your own AWS and internet backbone!" is now your argument. As others have pointed out, the pro-censorship activists generally also hypocritically support free speech when it comes to their issues -- such as forcing private businesses to bake cakes they disagree with, or forcing retail companies to stock books with certain themes.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  > As others have pointed out, the pro-censorship activists generally also hypocritically support free speech when it comes to their issues A few months ago I would have called the "pro-censorship" label hyperbole. The folks who support censorship on social media have a few decent, good-faith-sounding arguments in favor of censorship. The primary argument being something like "I'm not in favor of censorship, but censorship by corps isn't unconstitutional!". But as soon as it seemed clear that Elon would buy Twitter, the mask came off and those same people who claimed they weren't in favor of censorship were openly bemoaning the end of the pro-censorship regime.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  > Don't forget that Parler, a relatively milquetoast 'free speech' website, was kicked off some pretty core internet infrastructure and was denied access by dozens of others. Parler[0] and Gab[1] are still alive and well. In other words, despite being kicked off, they still managed to survive. [0]: https://parler.com/ https://parler.com/ [1]: https://gab.com/ https://gab.com/
nradov 4y ago
Common carrier laws already force some businesses to carry speech they don't agree with. I see no problem with extending those laws to cover social media companies, as suggested by Justice Clarence Thomas. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
incomingpain 4y ago
>Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A publisher isn't forced. They choose the speech they like and censor what they dont like. They are liable for what they say. So when CNN for example published lies about that maga kid... maga kid got a nice payout from them. A platform though isn't a publisher and isn't liable for content; they get this liability protection by agreeing they cannot censor speech. The only allowed censorship is over reasonable good faith efforts. When twitter had extreme examples of lies about maga kid, he cants sue twitter. If these platforms could censor speech, they could operate exactly like a publisher but without liability? That's not how it works. What a disaster if you made publishers not liable by pretending to be platforms. So yes, you must force platforms to accept all speech with very limited good faith moderation.
- nradov 4y ago
  That is a common misconception. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher".
  - anthony_d 4y ago
    I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer service" and Section 230 is very explicit: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" In essence the point of section 230 is to allow social media platforms to provide content while not being considered the publisher. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
    - nradov 4y ago
      The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.
zajio1am 4y ago
> Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A business choose to offer 'carrying speech' service to public, so it should offer that service in impartial and fair manner. That is pretty basic consumer protection approach (at least in Europe, i have an impression that US has lower standards). > Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section That is completely different / incomparable case. Social networks publicly offer service to anybody, while op-ed sections are individually offered on newspaper discretion. I am ok with social networks to use their discretion on which messages they promote/recommend (as that is in principle discretion-based decision), but not for mechanistic functionality like 'distribute message to followers'. > Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people? It is acceptable if a service has rules and enforce them, but then it should also be acceptable to sue a service that does arbitrary moderation (either excessive outside of its own rules, or doing selective enforcement of rules). Also, there is an argument that such rules should not be discriminatory.
Vladimof 4y ago
> Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section? It's completely different... one allows everyone and then bans the ones they don't like...

mikecoles 4y ago

Businesses have been forced to bake cakes. Precedents have been set.

notreallyserio 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not true. If it's the case I'm thinking of the result was exactly the opposite. Do you have more details on what case you're referring to?
wfhordie 4y ago
The Supreme Court overruled that about four years ago. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cake...
- mikecoles 4y ago
  If you're murdered and the court finds you shouldn't have been murdered, that doesn't help you out much.
bediger4000 4y ago
You know that went the other way? The precedent is that businesses don't have to bake cakes based on religious viewpoints. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162 Precedents have been set exactly the other way. This law looks like conservatives having a hissy fit that this time around market forces are keeping them from dominating all conversations, so they're making laws to enforce their social dominance.

TexanFeller 4y ago

Businesses are not people and shouldn’t have the same rights. Hard no from me on the concept of corporate personhood.

krapp 4y ago
You don't believe businesses should have the right to free speech, because they are not a person. Fair enough. Do you believe religious groups should have the right to free speech? Religion isn't a person. If not free speech, what about the right of assembly? What about the press? The press isn't a person, either. What about political parties? What about your family? What is the limit? Two people? Four? How many people does one need to gather together under common interests before their rights are nullified, and replaced by some other set of rights governing "entities" like businesses, religions, political parties, etc? There's a very good reason the First Amendment refers to "the people" and not individual persons - because it makes no sense to deny the existence of rights in aggregate. Yes, the press has rights, despite being an abstract entity, because it - along with religious groups, political parties and businesses, represent collections of people, and thus is synonymous with the rights of the sum of the individuals making up those entities.

0xy 4y ago

"Just build it yourself" is a common lie often used by people who either don't know of or don't care that even domain registrars and backbone internet providers have been forced into censorship by activists. Given you might be in a position where nobody will sell you bandwidth and nobody will register your domain name, "just build it yourself" becomes "just build an entire network infrastructure provider, domain registrar, hosting company and website". Don't forget that Parler, a relatively milquetoast 'free speech' website, was kicked off some pretty core internet infrastructure and was denied access by dozens of others. "Just build your own AWS and internet backbone!" is now your argument. As others have pointed out, the pro-censorship activists generally also hypocritically support free speech when it comes to their issues -- such as forcing private businesses to bake cakes they disagree with, or forcing retail companies to stock books with certain themes.

marcusverus 4y ago
> As others have pointed out, the pro-censorship activists generally also hypocritically support free speech when it comes to their issues A few months ago I would have called the "pro-censorship" label hyperbole. The folks who support censorship on social media have a few decent, good-faith-sounding arguments in favor of censorship. The primary argument being something like "I'm not in favor of censorship, but censorship by corps isn't unconstitutional!". But as soon as it seemed clear that Elon would buy Twitter, the mask came off and those same people who claimed they weren't in favor of censorship were openly bemoaning the end of the pro-censorship regime.
colejohnson66 4y ago
> Don't forget that Parler, a relatively milquetoast 'free speech' website, was kicked off some pretty core internet infrastructure and was denied access by dozens of others. Parler[0] and Gab[1] are still alive and well. In other words, despite being kicked off, they still managed to survive. [0]: https://parler.com/ https://parler.com/ [1]: https://gab.com/ https://gab.com/

nradov 4y ago

Common carrier laws already force some businesses to carry speech they don't agree with. I see no problem with extending those laws to cover social media companies, as suggested by Justice Clarence Thomas. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-aims-at-tech-and-its-power-to-cut-off-speech https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...

incomingpain 4y ago

>Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A publisher isn't forced. They choose the speech they like and censor what they dont like. They are liable for what they say. So when CNN for example published lies about that maga kid... maga kid got a nice payout from them. A platform though isn't a publisher and isn't liable for content; they get this liability protection by agreeing they cannot censor speech. The only allowed censorship is over reasonable good faith efforts. When twitter had extreme examples of lies about maga kid, he cants sue twitter. If these platforms could censor speech, they could operate exactly like a publisher but without liability? That's not how it works. What a disaster if you made publishers not liable by pretending to be platforms. So yes, you must force platforms to accept all speech with very limited good faith moderation.

nradov 4y ago
That is a common misconception. At least under US federal law, there is nothing special about a platform. There is no distinction between a "platform" and a "publisher".
- anthony_d 4y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret that. What do you mean by "platform"? I would have thought the normal use of "platform" would be similar to "interactive computer service" and Section 230 is very explicit: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" In essence the point of section 230 is to allow social media platforms to provide content while not being considered the publisher. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - nradov 4y ago
    The normal use of a term is legally irrelevant. Section 230 applies equally to all online services, regardless of whether they are social media platforms or not. The law dates back to 1996 so obviously the point of the law wasn't specific to social media. Again there is no distinction between "platform" and "publisher". Go read the actual law.

zajio1am 4y ago

> Contrary to your perspective, why should a business be forced to carry speech it doesn't agree with? A business choose to offer 'carrying speech' service to public, so it should offer that service in impartial and fair manner. That is pretty basic consumer protection approach (at least in Europe, i have an impression that US has lower standards). > Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section That is completely different / incomparable case. Social networks publicly offer service to anybody, while op-ed sections are individually offered on newspaper discretion. I am ok with social networks to use their discretion on which messages they promote/recommend (as that is in principle discretion-based decision), but not for mechanistic functionality like 'distribute message to followers'. > Are there any exceptions to your rule of not moderating, such as illegal content or violence against specific people? It is acceptable if a service has rules and enforce them, but then it should also be acceptable to sue a service that does arbitrary moderation (either excessive outside of its own rules, or doing selective enforcement of rules). Also, there is an argument that such rules should not be discriminatory.

Vladimof 4y ago

> Should a newspaper allow anybody to have a say in its op ed section? It's completely different... one allows everyone and then bans the ones they don't like...