8 ms·

> "freedom of speech" (I know that the first amendment only applies to government censorship, but Musk likes to pretend not to) Freedom of speech is not the fi

> "freedom of speech" (I know that the first amendment only applies to government censorship, but Musk likes to pretend not to) Freedom of speech is not the first amendment and vice versa. Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces, public and private, while the First Amendment only applies in America and to the government. People think they sound smart when they say freedom of speech only applies to government censorship, but they actually sound ignorant of the concept's millennia-long history pre-dating the discovery of America entirely.

webinvest 4y ago
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  That's 'First Amendment Freedom of Speech', not 'freedom of speech'. When people say 'freedom of speech should be protected', they're being more broad than 'First Amendment Freedom of Speech should be protected'.
- andrewaylett 4y ago
  Right. We're probably all aware of the text -- this is a US-centric site, after all. But I think you make the GP's point all the more necessary: The first amendment to the US constitution restrains one party from introducing rules abridging freedom of speech. There are plenty of other parties who may or may not seek to introduce and/or enforce rules allowing or prohibiting various forms of speech which are not the US government. My own government, for example. And Twitter. That an action doesn't breach the first amendment to the US constitution doesn't say all that much when it comes to whether it's consistent with the stated ideals of proponents of freedom of speech.
jimt1234 4y ago
Conversely, people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship At least on HN, I’ve never seen this, except as a totem.
- danenania 4y ago
  The principle that the first amendment is based on goes beyond government censorship. If large numbers of people are afraid to express their opinions because they fear being cut off from essential services, that's troublesome to anyone who believes in the principle of free speech, regardless of whether the source of the censorship is the government, private entities, or some murky conjunction of both. It's quite akin to opposing systematic racism from private businesses. You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society.
  - Tangurena2 4y ago
    > You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society. I disagree. Historically, the only time people were refusing service to anyone, the people being refused service were black. Hippies were sometimes discriminated against. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but there are more than a few politicians/people who want to drag us back into the 1950s. In Colorado, such an act would be illegal. Which makes many people in today's polarized society extremely angry as they want to discriminate as much as possible. Rule 20.4 (page 18 of the PDF): > No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign that states or implies the following: > “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” > Such signage implies that management may rely upon unlawful discriminatory factors in determining access to a place of public accommodation and thus is prohibited https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVersionId=6008&fileName=3%20CCR%20708-1# https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVers... These are regulations issued to support the administration of the state government.
sib301 4y ago
Every time this debate comes up, someone suggests that companies like Twitter are in violation of the first amendment when they remove a user's post. To me they often sound like the ignorant ones.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > in violation of the first amendment I've never seen this. I have seen people point out that Twitter isn't promoting freedom of speech and the somebody else conflating that with the first amendment of the U.S. constitution though.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  This[0] is probably a first amendment violation. [0]https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I see people refuting this a lot. I don't see many people asserting it. Reeks of strawman. The real debate is if society should value free speech.
- artificial 4y ago
  More from The Intercept, here's a document from DHS on disinfo discussing using 3rd party non profits as a "clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda." https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587257992449208320 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587257992449208320 in the same thread there's a Draft DHS quad review, which plans agency policy, leaked that shows growing focus on MDM (misinfo, disinfo, malinfo) to protect homeland against spread of "toxic narratives." How the agency defines false info and what narratives are prioritized isn’t clear.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  The general sentiment is that if tech companies can censor arbitrarily their special section 230 liability protection should be removed. They are no longer acting as an internet service, but as a publisher that curates publications.
lucideer 4y ago
> Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces Is it though? Those outside of the US who subscribe to this ideal seem heavily influenced by US culture in my experience. I'm not aware of non-US sources of the idea. Add to that I've never really seen anyone espouse this ideal that actually understood (or could articulate) what "free speech" even means... Certainly in the context of Musk's campaign, neither he nor most of his followers are genuine in their support for "free speech". Musk in particular has been a staunch supporter of censorship in practice, and has only paid lip service to free speech for clicks.
- yodsanklai 4y ago
  > Those outside of the US who subscribe to this ideal seem heavily influenced by US culture in my experience. I'm not aware of non-US sources of the idea. The idea predates the existence of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
  - lucideer 4y ago
    An article on a wholly US topic, that has one small line saying the following: > It is thought that the ancient [Athenian democratic principle](hyperlink) of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. The hyperlinked page on democratic principle notably has no mention of free speech. I've replied to a sibling commenter on Athenian "free speech" parallels - much of their association with modern concepts is appropriation.
    - yodsanklai 4y ago
      Freedom of speech isn't a "wholly US topic". It's understood and accepted in most democratic countries. > The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. > The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[7] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
nonethewiser 4y ago
Can't we just all agree that freedom of speech should be some narrow technicality that can legally be ignored in most circumstances?
anotherman554 4y ago
"Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces, public and private" Since we can't agree on a definition of "freedom of speech" this doesn't mean much. In practice it seems to mean something is a "freedom of speech issue" when a speaker wants someone to not face social consequences for some action (For example an Elon Musk fan saying he shouldn't be charged with investor fraud because "freedom of speech"), and when a speaker wants someone to face social consequences they stay conveniently silent. (Say, an Elon Musk fan not complaining when he fires an employee for something they said).
kenjackson 4y ago
The concept outside the context of legal sanctions is an odd one though. It's much like the anti-cancel culture argument. It seems some want freedom of speech with absolutely no chance of any consequence whatsoever. I think there's a reason why the more broad sense of freedom of speech has never been codified.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  If you want a free society then that's the only way. If published in today's age, Samuel L. Clemens would have been cancelled by mercurial cry bullies.
  - toofy 4y ago
    by canceled you mean, people would have used their own free speech to say stuff he didn’t want to hear. and then he would have published his books.
  - kenjackson 4y ago
    I disagree. My ability to apply consequences is a necessary part of freedom. The consequences on their own shouldn't be illegal (e.g., murder), but applying those actions shouldn't in themselves be illegal when applied as a consequence of speech. For example, if I'm in line at McDonalds and the cashier tells me that I'm ugly and he hates my family, I should be able to say, "I've changed my mind, I'm not going to eat here". But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.
    - pdpi 4y ago
      > But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act. Going a bit further: not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech, so you literally can't have one without the other!
bink 4y ago
And freedom of speech also includes to the rights of private individuals and companies to determine what they share on their own platforms, and what they can or cannot be compelled to host or say.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pojzon 4y ago
  But when someone buys out this company and changes guidelines what can be shared and what not -> ppl get instantly mad and baby rage. Why? Its a private company..
  - three_seagrass 4y ago
    They don't, they call out the hypocrisy of habitual liar making claims about first amendment rights. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376
- overrun11 4y ago
  It's a huge stretch to apply the same rights to companies. Companies are not people and do not automatically get the same rights individuals do.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Companies are groups of people. It's right there in the word "company".
  - krapp 4y ago
    It's impossible to deny freedom of speech (or freedom of association) to a company without denying those same freedoms to the people forming the company, or its customers or users of its service. That's one of the reasons companies do have freedom of speech, and exist as quasilegal "entities" in and of themselves. Rights don't cease to exist in aggregate. Any legal pretense one could use to deny freedom of speech and expression to a company could also be used to deny any group - political parties, religions, specific races or genders, the press, etc.
pdpi 4y ago
The first amendment isn't even particularly strong protection - it only forbids Congress from restricting freedom of speech, but doesn't set out any specific rights, or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. E.g. the Portuguese constitution has much stronger guarantees. It explicitly recognises freedom of exprssion as a right, but it also explicitly recognises freedom of access to information as a right: you have a right to inform yourself, and the exercise of that right cannot be limited by any form of censorship. It also specifically recognises a bunch more rights associated with media. Some rights protect journalists, such as the right to source confidentiality (which isn't even law in the US, let alone a constitutional right), and the right to elect representatives to their employers'editorial team. On the flipside, there's also rights protecting the public from media interference: regulators have the power (and responsibility) to prevent the consolidation of media ownership, and the media's ownership and sources of income must be made public.
- alecbz 4y ago
  > or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. 1A on its own does not do this, but AIUI a subsequent amendment (I think one of the reconstruction amendments?) has been interpreted to apply the restrictions in the constitution to state governments as well.
  - aamar 4y ago
    A good explanation of the incorporation doctrine, with citations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > The first amendment isn't even particularly strong protection - it only forbids Congress from restricting freedom of speech, but doesn't set out any specific rights, or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. This has been true when 1st Amendment has been passed, but has not been true since SCOTUS ruled that 14th Amendment incorporates 1st Amendment for states. Today, states are just as bound by 1st Amendments as the federal government is. > but it also explicitly recognises freedom of access to information as a right: you have a right to inform yourself, and the exercise of that right cannot be limited by any form of censorship. That’s interesting, but what does it mean in practice? Can you give me an example of a situation where this right applied in Portugal? I want to know if this would actually protect us Americans from something that the government is currently not prohibited from doing.
philjohn 4y ago
The Town Square metaphor is equally strained. If you act like an objectionable fool you'll soon be chased out of it.
pif 4y ago
Your freedom of speech does not oblige me to provide you with a microphone. You are free to post on your website and Twitter is free to manage their website.
Rapzid 4y ago
The first amendment has very little to do with the "freedom of speech" most people are constantly arguing about. But they are conflated so the first amendment gets dragged into the same old tired conversations. To me the first amendment is much more interesting. Its roots in ancient Greece. Its importance in sustaining a democratic government. The paradoxical nature of trying to extend its reach to private entities...
ytpete 4y ago
Ironically, "free speech" as a broader principle can also be interpreted to mean a private company should not be compelled to carry or broadcast anyone else's speech if they don't want to. Any private company can choose what kind of community norms and tone they want to set, and moderate accordingly. Some platforms may allow hate speech, others not. Some may allow porn, others not. Taking editorial control away robs that forum of its own free speech agency.
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  Pretty much. There are also limitations to freedom of speech the principle if not first amendment or freedom of association. John Stuart Mill specifically calls this out in the harm principle. From what I've observed, people who invoke "it's freedom of speech philosophy" rarely understand that even as a philosophy, free speech not a blank check to be able to say whatever you want w/o consequence. Or they equate it to freedom of reach.
ineptech 4y ago
> Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces, public and private Private spaces? Nonsense. You can't go in to a restaurant and start ranting about the Jews or whatever, and then say that they're violating the "ideal of free speech" when they kick you out. Free speech means you get to espouse an idea, not force people to hear it. The disagreement is about whether Twitter is a public or private space. It seems to me to be pretty obviously private, and AFAICT the people who argue that it's public don't have much justification beyond "I want it to be, because I or someone I like got kicked out."
- KyleBerezin 4y ago
  Freedom of speech isn't a law, it is a concept. If you are in a private space and insult someone, they may choose to not 'turn the other cheek'. Does that mean 'turning the other cheek' can't be applied in private spaces? They are both concepts, not laws.
  - ineptech 4y ago
    This is so abstract as to be meaningless, I have no idea what you're arguing or what you think "applied" means in this context. Does the concept of "free speech" mean you ought to be able to scream the n word in a Wendy's without being asked to leave? If not, my point is that Twitter is no different; if yes, then you and I mean very different things by "free speech".
    - KyleBerezin 4y ago
      It is abstract, and the argument is semantic. Freedom of speech is an concept, turning the cheek is a concept. Most people agree neither should be applied absolutely, but they both can be applied or ignored in any space, private or public. There are laws that try to codify the concepts. The 1st amendment is one of such laws, but it only applies to the US government. It doesn't mean that the concept it is based on is held to the same restrictions.
      - 4y ago

webinvest 4y ago

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

chrisseaton 4y ago
That's 'First Amendment Freedom of Speech', not 'freedom of speech'. When people say 'freedom of speech should be protected', they're being more broad than 'First Amendment Freedom of Speech should be protected'.
andrewaylett 4y ago
Right. We're probably all aware of the text -- this is a US-centric site, after all. But I think you make the GP's point all the more necessary: The first amendment to the US constitution restrains one party from introducing rules abridging freedom of speech. There are plenty of other parties who may or may not seek to introduce and/or enforce rules allowing or prohibiting various forms of speech which are not the US government. My own government, for example. And Twitter. That an action doesn't breach the first amendment to the US constitution doesn't say all that much when it comes to whether it's consistent with the stated ideals of proponents of freedom of speech.

jimt1234 4y ago

Conversely, people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> people often reference "First Amendment" in situations that have nothing to do with government censorship At least on HN, I’ve never seen this, except as a totem.
danenania 4y ago
The principle that the first amendment is based on goes beyond government censorship. If large numbers of people are afraid to express their opinions because they fear being cut off from essential services, that's troublesome to anyone who believes in the principle of free speech, regardless of whether the source of the censorship is the government, private entities, or some murky conjunction of both. It's quite akin to opposing systematic racism from private businesses. You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society.
- Tangurena2 4y ago
  > You could argue that a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and it shouldn't concern any outside parties. But when these actions begin to interfere with the ability of large segments of the population to go grocery shopping, use the toilet, get a job, or get an education, it becomes a larger social issue that is deeply concerning to anyone who believes in the principles that underly a free society. I disagree. Historically, the only time people were refusing service to anyone, the people being refused service were black. Hippies were sometimes discriminated against. We've come a long way since the 1960s, but there are more than a few politicians/people who want to drag us back into the 1950s. In Colorado, such an act would be illegal. Which makes many people in today's polarized society extremely angry as they want to discriminate as much as possible. Rule 20.4 (page 18 of the PDF): > No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign that states or implies the following: > “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.” > Such signage implies that management may rely upon unlawful discriminatory factors in determining access to a place of public accommodation and thus is prohibited https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVersionId=6008&fileName=3%20CCR%20708-1# https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/3%20CCR%20708-1.pdf?ruleVers... These are regulations issued to support the administration of the state government.

sib301 4y ago

Every time this debate comes up, someone suggests that companies like Twitter are in violation of the first amendment when they remove a user's post. To me they often sound like the ignorant ones.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> in violation of the first amendment I've never seen this. I have seen people point out that Twitter isn't promoting freedom of speech and the somebody else conflating that with the first amendment of the U.S. constitution though.
willcipriano 4y ago
This[0] is probably a first amendment violation. [0]https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...
nonethewiser 4y ago
I see people refuting this a lot. I don't see many people asserting it. Reeks of strawman. The real debate is if society should value free speech.
artificial 4y ago
More from The Intercept, here's a document from DHS on disinfo discussing using 3rd party non profits as a "clearing house for information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda." https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587257992449208320 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587257992449208320 in the same thread there's a Draft DHS quad review, which plans agency policy, leaked that shows growing focus on MDM (misinfo, disinfo, malinfo) to protect homeland against spread of "toxic narratives." How the agency defines false info and what narratives are prioritized isn’t clear.
chrisco255 4y ago
The general sentiment is that if tech companies can censor arbitrarily their special section 230 liability protection should be removed. They are no longer acting as an internet service, but as a publisher that curates publications.

lucideer 4y ago

> Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces Is it though? Those outside of the US who subscribe to this ideal seem heavily influenced by US culture in my experience. I'm not aware of non-US sources of the idea. Add to that I've never really seen anyone espouse this ideal that actually understood (or could articulate) what "free speech" even means... Certainly in the context of Musk's campaign, neither he nor most of his followers are genuine in their support for "free speech". Musk in particular has been a staunch supporter of censorship in practice, and has only paid lip service to free speech for clicks.

yodsanklai 4y ago
> Those outside of the US who subscribe to this ideal seem heavily influenced by US culture in my experience. I'm not aware of non-US sources of the idea. The idea predates the existence of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
- lucideer 4y ago
  An article on a wholly US topic, that has one small line saying the following: > It is thought that the ancient [Athenian democratic principle](hyperlink) of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC. The hyperlinked page on democratic principle notably has no mention of free speech. I've replied to a sibling commenter on Athenian "free speech" parallels - much of their association with modern concepts is appropriation.
  - yodsanklai 4y ago
    Freedom of speech isn't a "wholly US topic". It's understood and accepted in most democratic countries. > The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. > The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[7] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

nonethewiser 4y ago

Can't we just all agree that freedom of speech should be some narrow technicality that can legally be ignored in most circumstances?

anotherman554 4y ago

"Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces, public and private" Since we can't agree on a definition of "freedom of speech" this doesn't mean much. In practice it seems to mean something is a "freedom of speech issue" when a speaker wants someone to not face social consequences for some action (For example an Elon Musk fan saying he shouldn't be charged with investor fraud because "freedom of speech"), and when a speaker wants someone to face social consequences they stay conveniently silent. (Say, an Elon Musk fan not complaining when he fires an employee for something they said).

kenjackson 4y ago

The concept outside the context of legal sanctions is an odd one though. It's much like the anti-cancel culture argument. It seems some want freedom of speech with absolutely no chance of any consequence whatsoever. I think there's a reason why the more broad sense of freedom of speech has never been codified.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
If you want a free society then that's the only way. If published in today's age, Samuel L. Clemens would have been cancelled by mercurial cry bullies.
- toofy 4y ago
  by canceled you mean, people would have used their own free speech to say stuff he didn’t want to hear. and then he would have published his books.
- kenjackson 4y ago
  I disagree. My ability to apply consequences is a necessary part of freedom. The consequences on their own shouldn't be illegal (e.g., murder), but applying those actions shouldn't in themselves be illegal when applied as a consequence of speech. For example, if I'm in line at McDonalds and the cashier tells me that I'm ugly and he hates my family, I should be able to say, "I've changed my mind, I'm not going to eat here". But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act.
  - pdpi 4y ago
    > But not being able to apply consequence to speech prohibits me from doing even this simple act. Going a bit further: not being able to apply consequences to speech is itself curtailing your speech, so you literally can't have one without the other!

bink 4y ago

And freedom of speech also includes to the rights of private individuals and companies to determine what they share on their own platforms, and what they can or cannot be compelled to host or say.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pojzon 4y ago
But when someone buys out this company and changes guidelines what can be shared and what not -> ppl get instantly mad and baby rage. Why? Its a private company..
- three_seagrass 4y ago
  They don't, they call out the hypocrisy of habitual liar making claims about first amendment rights. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376
overrun11 4y ago
It's a huge stretch to apply the same rights to companies. Companies are not people and do not automatically get the same rights individuals do.
- lupire 4y ago
  Companies are groups of people. It's right there in the word "company".
- krapp 4y ago
  It's impossible to deny freedom of speech (or freedom of association) to a company without denying those same freedoms to the people forming the company, or its customers or users of its service. That's one of the reasons companies do have freedom of speech, and exist as quasilegal "entities" in and of themselves. Rights don't cease to exist in aggregate. Any legal pretense one could use to deny freedom of speech and expression to a company could also be used to deny any group - political parties, religions, specific races or genders, the press, etc.

pdpi 4y ago

The first amendment isn't even particularly strong protection - it only forbids Congress from restricting freedom of speech, but doesn't set out any specific rights, or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. E.g. the Portuguese constitution has much stronger guarantees. It explicitly recognises freedom of exprssion as a right, but it also explicitly recognises freedom of access to information as a right: you have a right to inform yourself, and the exercise of that right cannot be limited by any form of censorship. It also specifically recognises a bunch more rights associated with media. Some rights protect journalists, such as the right to source confidentiality (which isn't even law in the US, let alone a constitutional right), and the right to elect representatives to their employers'editorial team. On the flipside, there's also rights protecting the public from media interference: regulators have the power (and responsibility) to prevent the consolidation of media ownership, and the media's ownership and sources of income must be made public.

alecbz 4y ago
> or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. 1A on its own does not do this, but AIUI a subsequent amendment (I think one of the reconstruction amendments?) has been interpreted to apply the restrictions in the constitution to state governments as well.
- aamar 4y ago
  A good explanation of the incorporation doctrine, with citations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine
xyzzyz 4y ago
> The first amendment isn't even particularly strong protection - it only forbids Congress from restricting freedom of speech, but doesn't set out any specific rights, or preclude states from setting their own laws restricting rights. This has been true when 1st Amendment has been passed, but has not been true since SCOTUS ruled that 14th Amendment incorporates 1st Amendment for states. Today, states are just as bound by 1st Amendments as the federal government is. > but it also explicitly recognises freedom of access to information as a right: you have a right to inform yourself, and the exercise of that right cannot be limited by any form of censorship. That’s interesting, but what does it mean in practice? Can you give me an example of a situation where this right applied in Portugal? I want to know if this would actually protect us Americans from something that the government is currently not prohibited from doing.

philjohn 4y ago

The Town Square metaphor is equally strained. If you act like an objectionable fool you'll soon be chased out of it.

pif 4y ago

Your freedom of speech does not oblige me to provide you with a microphone. You are free to post on your website and Twitter is free to manage their website.

Rapzid 4y ago

The first amendment has very little to do with the "freedom of speech" most people are constantly arguing about. But they are conflated so the first amendment gets dragged into the same old tired conversations. To me the first amendment is much more interesting. Its roots in ancient Greece. Its importance in sustaining a democratic government. The paradoxical nature of trying to extend its reach to private entities...

ytpete 4y ago

Ironically, "free speech" as a broader principle can also be interpreted to mean a private company should not be compelled to carry or broadcast anyone else's speech if they don't want to. Any private company can choose what kind of community norms and tone they want to set, and moderate accordingly. Some platforms may allow hate speech, others not. Some may allow porn, others not. Taking editorial control away robs that forum of its own free speech agency.

three_seagrass 4y ago
Pretty much. There are also limitations to freedom of speech the principle if not first amendment or freedom of association. John Stuart Mill specifically calls this out in the harm principle. From what I've observed, people who invoke "it's freedom of speech philosophy" rarely understand that even as a philosophy, free speech not a blank check to be able to say whatever you want w/o consequence. Or they equate it to freedom of reach.

ineptech 4y ago

> Freedom of speech is an ideal that applies to all people and all spaces, public and private Private spaces? Nonsense. You can't go in to a restaurant and start ranting about the Jews or whatever, and then say that they're violating the "ideal of free speech" when they kick you out. Free speech means you get to espouse an idea, not force people to hear it. The disagreement is about whether Twitter is a public or private space. It seems to me to be pretty obviously private, and AFAICT the people who argue that it's public don't have much justification beyond "I want it to be, because I or someone I like got kicked out."

KyleBerezin 4y ago
Freedom of speech isn't a law, it is a concept. If you are in a private space and insult someone, they may choose to not 'turn the other cheek'. Does that mean 'turning the other cheek' can't be applied in private spaces? They are both concepts, not laws.
- ineptech 4y ago
  This is so abstract as to be meaningless, I have no idea what you're arguing or what you think "applied" means in this context. Does the concept of "free speech" mean you ought to be able to scream the n word in a Wendy's without being asked to leave? If not, my point is that Twitter is no different; if yes, then you and I mean very different things by "free speech".
  - KyleBerezin 4y ago
    It is abstract, and the argument is semantic. Freedom of speech is an concept, turning the cheek is a concept. Most people agree neither should be applied absolutely, but they both can be applied or ignored in any space, private or public. There are laws that try to codify the concepts. The 1st amendment is one of such laws, but it only applies to the US government. It doesn't mean that the concept it is based on is held to the same restrictions.
    - 4y ago