4 ms·

> any limitation on a free-for-all internet commenting as a kind of censorship. You're nailing all of the reasons why it's such an unworkable idea. I think it

> any limitation on a free-for-all internet commenting as a kind of censorship. You're nailing all of the reasons why it's such an unworkable idea. I think it misses all the solutions we'd implement if we decided that ISPs and social-media couldn't censor. We'd have strong personal content curation tools to avoid things that merely offend or bother us, and ISPs/social-media companies would only get protection if they cooperated in helping police find the posters of actual criminal speech. > Should I be allowed to come into your store, harass your customers, scream my political views, and then tell you that you can't kick me out? Scream, no. But if you sell me a coffee I should have a right to sit at the tables and talk to my friend, even if another customer dislikes our politics. You didn't sell me a coffee and a ticket to a specific-viewpoints-only dining room, so you can't kick me out for my viewpoint after the fact. If someone's harassment only involves knowing that someone else has a different viewpoint than them then it's not harassment.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Restaurants and bars can absolutely kick customers out for revealing they are, for example, Nazi sympathizers in most states in the US. Absent specific law around protected classes, the default is that the owner of the space controls associative use of the space. If someone buys a coffee at Starbucks, sits down, and starts talking loudly about how Hitler had some great ideas? The manager is absolutely within their rights to tell them to get out. The only reason they need is such talk will drive other customers away and harm their business.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > Restaurants and bars can absolutely kick customers out for revealing [...] It depends. In general, no. Only if the "revealing" is harassing or disturbing other patrons. If you ask me, post sale, and I merely answer your question - definitely not.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    IIUC, unless you can reference particular law that says they can't... In general, yes. It's private property and they control access to it. The default legal position is that a stranger can be removed from private property for any reason and no reason (including but not limited to: "We're closed," "You are disrupting my customers," "we have a dress / hygiene code and you violate it," and "You insulted my family at a dinner party last week and so your business is no longer welcome here. Ever.") There are some very specific, generally narrow carve-outs in the law to that otherwise-default policy (in particular, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). The point is: we needed all these laws on the books because the default is right to refuse service. We didn't have to pass laws that said "A business may refuse service if etc. etc.". That was assumed. (The back-stop to this kind of behavior from a business is, in general, market competition; if there are enough people in town who want to talk about the ideas Hitler had with a nice, warm latte in hand, and Starbucks is telling them no, someone else opens a discourse-friendly coffee shop and gets that business. Or they end up going under because that business isn't enough to sustain a coffee shop and such talk drives away the remaining bulk of paying customers that could keep such a venture afloat. It's the American Dream in action.)
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > IIUC, unless you can reference particular law that says they can't. You're right, before sale or invitation to treat. After you invite me in and/or serve me you lose the right to eject me for a reasonable time. Casinos run into this with cheaters they ban. If they later give the person an invitation to the casino, for a promo perhaps, the banned person is allowed to assume it overrides the ban. The issue is that you're implicitly selling coffee AND a seat. If you don't say otherwise I have a right to both. If this was a hypothetical takeout-only restaurant I wouldn't have an expectation of a place to eat.
crazygringo 4y ago
> We'd have strong personal content curation tools to avoid things That's missing the point completely. Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers and holocaust deniers and election deniers aren't given a platform to infect other Americans with their lies. It's necessarily done at the point of transmission, not the point of reception. Yes we have free speech in this country, so nothing's preventing you from telling your friends all that garbage in person or in private communications. But because we have free speech, private platforms that host speech have the freedom to deny their private platform to those spreading harmful lies. Or whatever they want to deny. Go outside and shout your lies on the street, that's protected. But to expect a company to amplify you across the internet? Forget about it. Also regarding your coffee shop -- if a customer buys a coffee, sits down and removes their jacket and is wearing a swastika T-shirt, of course the owner can kick them out, and any morally decent owner should. It's a private coffee shop. The owner is under zero legal or moral obligation to tolerate offensive speech within it. Privately owned spaces are not public forums with free speech protections. End of story.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers and holocaust deniers and election deniers Yeah, I get it. But personally I'd rather have our society have access to the crazy claims rather than be censorable. If we can't say unproven or unpopular things then many important messages get missed, such as that Jews are human or that some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based. I think neutering the new public square is more likely to destroy our society than claims of election theft. > It's necessarily done at the point of transmission Yes, control of someone's speech is. But I don't think that's necessary and neither do the vast majority of people. What we can offer you though, is a way to control what you see so that you can engage as you choose - perhaps only through your chosen politician or whatever. > Also regarding your coffee shop -- if a customer buys a coffee, sits down and removes their jacket and is wearing a swastika T-shirt, of course the owner can kick them out, and any morally decent owner should. Do you have an example that's not quite full-on hitler, with a symbol that is actually illegal to display in many countries? How do you think this should work with MAGA hats or shirts? > Privately owned spaces are not public forums with free speech protections. No, but if you sell the use of the space you have to consider that speaking reasonably to people around you, or displaying support for legal political parties via clothing, is something reasonable for a customer to do. If you plan to restrict these activities arbitrarily you have an obligation to say so with the offer. "Coffee, which you may drink in a DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room" for example.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Restaurants and bars can absolutely kick customers out for revealing they are, for example, Nazi sympathizers in most states in the US. Absent specific law around protected classes, the default is that the owner of the space controls associative use of the space. If someone buys a coffee at Starbucks, sits down, and starts talking loudly about how Hitler had some great ideas? The manager is absolutely within their rights to tell them to get out. The only reason they need is such talk will drive other customers away and harm their business.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> Restaurants and bars can absolutely kick customers out for revealing [...] It depends. In general, no. Only if the "revealing" is harassing or disturbing other patrons. If you ask me, post sale, and I merely answer your question - definitely not.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  IIUC, unless you can reference particular law that says they can't... In general, yes. It's private property and they control access to it. The default legal position is that a stranger can be removed from private property for any reason and no reason (including but not limited to: "We're closed," "You are disrupting my customers," "we have a dress / hygiene code and you violate it," and "You insulted my family at a dinner party last week and so your business is no longer welcome here. Ever.") There are some very specific, generally narrow carve-outs in the law to that otherwise-default policy (in particular, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). The point is: we needed all these laws on the books because the default is right to refuse service. We didn't have to pass laws that said "A business may refuse service if etc. etc.". That was assumed. (The back-stop to this kind of behavior from a business is, in general, market competition; if there are enough people in town who want to talk about the ideas Hitler had with a nice, warm latte in hand, and Starbucks is telling them no, someone else opens a discourse-friendly coffee shop and gets that business. Or they end up going under because that business isn't enough to sustain a coffee shop and such talk drives away the remaining bulk of paying customers that could keep such a venture afloat. It's the American Dream in action.)
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > IIUC, unless you can reference particular law that says they can't. You're right, before sale or invitation to treat. After you invite me in and/or serve me you lose the right to eject me for a reasonable time. Casinos run into this with cheaters they ban. If they later give the person an invitation to the casino, for a promo perhaps, the banned person is allowed to assume it overrides the ban. The issue is that you're implicitly selling coffee AND a seat. If you don't say otherwise I have a right to both. If this was a hypothetical takeout-only restaurant I wouldn't have an expectation of a place to eat.

crazygringo 4y ago

> We'd have strong personal content curation tools to avoid things That's missing the point completely. Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers and holocaust deniers and election deniers aren't given a platform to infect other Americans with their lies. It's necessarily done at the point of transmission, not the point of reception. Yes we have free speech in this country, so nothing's preventing you from telling your friends all that garbage in person or in private communications. But because we have free speech, private platforms that host speech have the freedom to deny their private platform to those spreading harmful lies. Or whatever they want to deny. Go outside and shout your lies on the street, that's protected. But to expect a company to amplify you across the internet? Forget about it. Also regarding your coffee shop -- if a customer buys a coffee, sits down and removes their jacket and is wearing a swastika T-shirt, of course the owner can kick them out, and any morally decent owner should. It's a private coffee shop. The owner is under zero legal or moral obligation to tolerate offensive speech within it. Privately owned spaces are not public forums with free speech protections. End of story.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> Editorial policy isn't in order to "avoid" offending readers. It's to avoid the spreading of harmful misinformation and disinformation, so that antivaxxers and holocaust deniers and election deniers Yeah, I get it. But personally I'd rather have our society have access to the crazy claims rather than be censorable. If we can't say unproven or unpopular things then many important messages get missed, such as that Jews are human or that some politician took bribes or that a public policy isn't actually evidence based. I think neutering the new public square is more likely to destroy our society than claims of election theft. > It's necessarily done at the point of transmission Yes, control of someone's speech is. But I don't think that's necessary and neither do the vast majority of people. What we can offer you though, is a way to control what you see so that you can engage as you choose - perhaps only through your chosen politician or whatever. > Also regarding your coffee shop -- if a customer buys a coffee, sits down and removes their jacket and is wearing a swastika T-shirt, of course the owner can kick them out, and any morally decent owner should. Do you have an example that's not quite full-on hitler, with a symbol that is actually illegal to display in many countries? How do you think this should work with MAGA hats or shirts? > Privately owned spaces are not public forums with free speech protections. No, but if you sell the use of the space you have to consider that speaking reasonably to people around you, or displaying support for legal political parties via clothing, is something reasonable for a customer to do. If you plan to restrict these activities arbitrarily you have an obligation to say so with the offer. "Coffee, which you may drink in a DEMOCRAT ONLY dining room" for example.