4 ms·

how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of fa

by kmlx 4y ago

how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
- kmlx 4y ago
  the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  > The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. > If you don't think that's suppression of free speech Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.
  - Folcon 4y ago
    The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    MSG offers entertainment to the public. They sell tickets which are fungible. How do you expect an attorney to be able to perform her professional responsibilities if she can be punished for doing so? What happens when her firm is involved in litigation with Cushman & Wakefield and she can’t meet clients with offices in Rockefeller Center due to a ban?
  - 4y ago
sslayer 4y ago
Primarily Democratic backed company that doesn't like Republicans and don't want to provide them service? Boom excluded - "We reserve the right to refuse you service!". And honestly with as much data that has been collected they could legally do it on a data point that's not tied to your politics(ie misdemeanors, felonies, court cases, etc). It's absolutely going to be discriminatory, and they can hide it in the algorithms. And, not to pick on Democrats this is possible for any group, or individual to clearly point at any other group/individual. This is just the start, but it might be the actual end of individual expression without repercussions.
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  Why is "Democrat vs Republican" relevant here, except as flamebait?
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    Not OP, but likely because Democrats have been doing this to Republicans online for the last 20 years or so (and almost never the other way around), so it's likely that we'll see the same behavior escape into the real world now that it's possible.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Hardly, the culture wars have been hitting in both directions for decades. The extreme right has been less successful at growing huge online companies, but giant companies can’t afford to kick off 1/2 their customers. It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      I've seen a video showing something like this, of a shop clerk refusing service to a customer because he had a maga hat (or some other sort of trump paraphernalia, I don't recall exactly.) As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
    - 4y ago
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Say what you want, but they never would let us starve..

by kmlx 4y ago

how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.

kmlx 4y ago
the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
marssaxman 4y ago
> The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. > If you don't think that's suppression of free speech Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.
- Folcon 4y ago
  The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 4y ago
  MSG offers entertainment to the public. They sell tickets which are fungible. How do you expect an attorney to be able to perform her professional responsibilities if she can be punished for doing so? What happens when her firm is involved in litigation with Cushman & Wakefield and she can’t meet clients with offices in Rockefeller Center due to a ban?
- 4y ago

sslayer 4y ago

Primarily Democratic backed company that doesn't like Republicans and don't want to provide them service? Boom excluded - "We reserve the right to refuse you service!". And honestly with as much data that has been collected they could legally do it on a data point that's not tied to your politics(ie misdemeanors, felonies, court cases, etc). It's absolutely going to be discriminatory, and they can hide it in the algorithms. And, not to pick on Democrats this is possible for any group, or individual to clearly point at any other group/individual. This is just the start, but it might be the actual end of individual expression without repercussions.

dtgriscom 4y ago
Why is "Democrat vs Republican" relevant here, except as flamebait?
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  Not OP, but likely because Democrats have been doing this to Republicans online for the last 20 years or so (and almost never the other way around), so it's likely that we'll see the same behavior escape into the real world now that it's possible.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Hardly, the culture wars have been hitting in both directions for decades. The extreme right has been less successful at growing huge online companies, but giant companies can’t afford to kick off 1/2 their customers. It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    I've seen a video showing something like this, of a shop clerk refusing service to a customer because he had a maga hat (or some other sort of trump paraphernalia, I don't recall exactly.) As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
  - 4y ago

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

Say what you want, but they never would let us starve..