4 ms·

In a world where Facebook doesn't have a freedom of speech right to remove a post without also losing section 230 protection do you think freedom of association

In a world where Facebook doesn't have a freedom of speech right to remove a post without also losing section 230 protection do you think freedom of association could cover removing specific posts or only banning users outright? Would Twitter's model of banning a user until they delete their own unwanted tweet(s) be okay?

throwaway0asd 4y ago
That’s not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only protects what you say only from government censorship.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a general principle that covers more than government censorship. What you're thinking of is the first amendment, which covers government censorship (including by its agents). 1A neither invented nor set the absolute boundary of the principle of freedom of speech.
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    In that case freedom of speech is generally defined according to Mills in On Liberty which still doesn’t acquiesce to the application suggested of social media. They as a large business of many users should not be provided a greater speech mandate than a dissenting individual should speech be actually free.
puffoflogic 4y ago
Freedom of association is rooted in freedom of speech. Otherwise all the Civil Rights Acts would be unconstitutional as they fundamentally impact association, but not in a way that dilutes speech which is what freedom of association covers, for better or for worse. So, social media corps lacking freedom of speech rights in their users content, they also lack freedom of association rights with regards to that content and those users. To push the metaphor too far, their users' speech and their own speech are like oil and water: they are too different to dilute each other. Now, would an alternate universe in which freedom of association was actually a robust right on its own be a better one overall? Would I happily trade that for this social media thing? Quite possibly, quite possibly.

throwaway0asd 4y ago

That’s not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only protects what you say only from government censorship.

puffoflogic 4y ago
That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a general principle that covers more than government censorship. What you're thinking of is the first amendment, which covers government censorship (including by its agents). 1A neither invented nor set the absolute boundary of the principle of freedom of speech.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  In that case freedom of speech is generally defined according to Mills in On Liberty which still doesn’t acquiesce to the application suggested of social media. They as a large business of many users should not be provided a greater speech mandate than a dissenting individual should speech be actually free.

puffoflogic 4y ago

Freedom of association is rooted in freedom of speech. Otherwise all the Civil Rights Acts would be unconstitutional as they fundamentally impact association, but not in a way that dilutes speech which is what freedom of association covers, for better or for worse. So, social media corps lacking freedom of speech rights in their users content, they also lack freedom of association rights with regards to that content and those users. To push the metaphor too far, their users' speech and their own speech are like oil and water: they are too different to dilute each other. Now, would an alternate universe in which freedom of association was actually a robust right on its own be a better one overall? Would I happily trade that for this social media thing? Quite possibly, quite possibly.