4 ms·

But nobody treats your post as speech by HN or Ycombinator. It's understood that the opinions you express are yours. So there's no expression or speech by HN

by treis 4y ago

But nobody treats your post as speech by HN or Ycombinator. It's understood that the opinions you express are yours. So there's no expression or speech by HN to trigger 1st amendment protections. IMHO platforms are looking to eat their cake and have it too. When a post is harmful they don't want the liability so they claim they aren't the speaker. But now that they want to ban a post they're trying to claim it's their expression to trigger 1st amendment protections. I don't think Texas' law is a good one for a handful of reasons. But dumb laws aren't the same as unconstitutional laws.

jquery 4y ago
So you’re fine if HN gets spammed with low quality memes? Can I go to /r/conservative and tell everyone there why MAGA is just neo-fascism? You want the internet to become a free for all because of your right wing persecution complex?
- treis 4y ago
  Like I said: I don't think Texas' law is a good one for a handful of reasons. But dumb laws aren't the same as unconstitutional laws.
  - jquery 4y ago
    This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. I’d be fine if it added due process for getting banned or something. But it doesn’t, it compels speech. Now HN can no longer ban people for low quality memes or flamebait. Or did the judges write an HN exception into their opinion?
kevinmchugh 4y ago
HN has a human moderator who decides what is and isn't in alignment with the HN community. His action to remove posts he finds egregious is his personal expression of speech - he very frequently writes comments explaining why he chose to remove a comment. The act of removing content is itself an expressive act which deserves government protection.
- radford-neal 4y ago
  But "acts" that aren't obviously speech acts are not generally regarded as speech. For example, you have the freedom to say, "nobody should be allowed to paint their house pink", but you don't have the freedom to act on this view, by over-painting someone else's pink house. Similarly, free speech gives one the right to say, "this post ought to be removed", but it does not follow that the right to free speech allows one to actually remove the post. Of course, it might be that there are other reasons why one has the right to remove the post, but arguments about "free speech" or "compelled speech" seem to miss the point.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    If someone paints my house pink without my authorization, we call that graffiti. If someone spams a site I own, surely that is also graffiti then?
    - radford-neal 4y ago
      If someone paints your house pink without your authorization, you do indeed have cause for legal complaint. But one would not usually say that your free speech rights have been violated (unless in painting it, they covered up some speech of yours).
      - Volundr 4y ago
        I'd say my free speech was violated if I wasn't allowed to remove their graffiti from my house, which is what is being discussed here.
        radford-neal 4y ago
        If someone put legible graffiti on your house, and you weren't allowed to remove it, and it thus appeared that you endorse whatever the graffiti is saying (not to mention having to encounter it yourself all day), then that would indeed be compelled speech. But we're not really talking about that. A site not removing a post is not an endorsement of the post, especially if they are legally required to not remove the post. I'm not saying that prohibiting removal of posts is necessarily a good idea. It can certainly be argued that the company providing the forum ought to be allowed to do whatever they want. But, for better or worse, "people/companies should be able to do whatever they want" is not a principle of US law. As far as I know, US states can make it illegal for anyone to cook hot dogs after 3pm on Wednesdays. If challenged in court, I think they don't even have to provide any rationale for this - it's enough that it is a law properly passed by the legislature. And of course US states have numerous less nonsensical laws regulating businesses, including things like prohibiting businesses from engaging in racial discrimination, or listening in on telephone conversations.
InCityDreams 4y ago
>IMHO platforms are looking to eat their cake and have it too. ....only in America. /music

by treis 4y ago

jquery 4y ago

So you’re fine if HN gets spammed with low quality memes? Can I go to /r/conservative and tell everyone there why MAGA is just neo-fascism? You want the internet to become a free for all because of your right wing persecution complex?

treis 4y ago
Like I said: I don't think Texas' law is a good one for a handful of reasons. But dumb laws aren't the same as unconstitutional laws.
- jquery 4y ago
  This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional. I’d be fine if it added due process for getting banned or something. But it doesn’t, it compels speech. Now HN can no longer ban people for low quality memes or flamebait. Or did the judges write an HN exception into their opinion?

kevinmchugh 4y ago

HN has a human moderator who decides what is and isn't in alignment with the HN community. His action to remove posts he finds egregious is his personal expression of speech - he very frequently writes comments explaining why he chose to remove a comment. The act of removing content is itself an expressive act which deserves government protection.

radford-neal 4y ago
But "acts" that aren't obviously speech acts are not generally regarded as speech. For example, you have the freedom to say, "nobody should be allowed to paint their house pink", but you don't have the freedom to act on this view, by over-painting someone else's pink house. Similarly, free speech gives one the right to say, "this post ought to be removed", but it does not follow that the right to free speech allows one to actually remove the post. Of course, it might be that there are other reasons why one has the right to remove the post, but arguments about "free speech" or "compelled speech" seem to miss the point.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  If someone paints my house pink without my authorization, we call that graffiti. If someone spams a site I own, surely that is also graffiti then?
  - radford-neal 4y ago
    If someone paints your house pink without your authorization, you do indeed have cause for legal complaint. But one would not usually say that your free speech rights have been violated (unless in painting it, they covered up some speech of yours).
    - Volundr 4y ago
      I'd say my free speech was violated if I wasn't allowed to remove their graffiti from my house, which is what is being discussed here.
      - radford-neal 4y ago
        If someone put legible graffiti on your house, and you weren't allowed to remove it, and it thus appeared that you endorse whatever the graffiti is saying (not to mention having to encounter it yourself all day), then that would indeed be compelled speech. But we're not really talking about that. A site not removing a post is not an endorsement of the post, especially if they are legally required to not remove the post. I'm not saying that prohibiting removal of posts is necessarily a good idea. It can certainly be argued that the company providing the forum ought to be allowed to do whatever they want. But, for better or worse, "people/companies should be able to do whatever they want" is not a principle of US law. As far as I know, US states can make it illegal for anyone to cook hot dogs after 3pm on Wednesdays. If challenged in court, I think they don't even have to provide any rationale for this - it's enough that it is a law properly passed by the legislature. And of course US states have numerous less nonsensical laws regulating businesses, including things like prohibiting businesses from engaging in racial discrimination, or listening in on telephone conversations.

InCityDreams 4y ago

>IMHO platforms are looking to eat their cake and have it too. ....only in America. /music