3 ms·

> the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech Well, you're not entirely wrong, but I feel perhaps like you're missing some nuance. I'm not

> the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech Well, you're not entirely wrong, but I feel perhaps like you're missing some nuance. I'm not a First Amendment attorney, but I don't think hosting is necessarily speech; and if Facebook ever claimed that their hosted content was a matter of their own speech, that could undermine their claim of immunity under Section 230. There's also the concept of private property becoming a public forum, which is well-supported by case law, but whose application is unclear in the virtual world. Anyway, apart from all that, free speech as a value is much broader than the legal requirements of the First Amendment. I'm reminded of Alan Berg, hosting and debating bigots on his radio show, because limiting expression always ends up hurting minorities, and because suppression of such thoughts just drives it underground; sunlight is the best disinfectant.

bee_rider 4y ago
>> In ideal free-speech land, these platforms are relaying our speech, and the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech. >> It isn’t obvious to me that there is an absolute direction. It seems like an interplay of the speech interests of various entities which may push against each other. > Well, you're not entirely wrong, but I feel perhaps like you're missing some nuance. I don’t think I was missing some nuance, I was describing a point where free speech absolutism misses some nuance. > Anyway, apart from all that, free speech as a value is much broader than the legal requirements of the First Amendment. I'm reminded of Alan Berg, hosting and debating bigots on his radio show, because limiting expression always ends up hurting minorities, and because suppression of such thoughts just drives it underground; sunlight is the best disinfectant. I do think there’s a value to open and thoughtful debate. Free speech as a general value is good, but sort of abstract. I think open, thoughtful, good-faith debate is a closely related but slightly better value. Sometimes it is fine to not host a discussion if one of the parties is just there to spew propaganda for example. Edit: removed a bit about Alan Berg, wasn’t familiar with his story. I don’t have anything to say other than, that’s just tragic.

bee_rider 4y ago

>> In ideal free-speech land, these platforms are relaying our speech, and the decision to do so or not is part of their freedom of speech. >> It isn’t obvious to me that there is an absolute direction. It seems like an interplay of the speech interests of various entities which may push against each other. > Well, you're not entirely wrong, but I feel perhaps like you're missing some nuance. I don’t think I was missing some nuance, I was describing a point where free speech absolutism misses some nuance. > Anyway, apart from all that, free speech as a value is much broader than the legal requirements of the First Amendment. I'm reminded of Alan Berg, hosting and debating bigots on his radio show, because limiting expression always ends up hurting minorities, and because suppression of such thoughts just drives it underground; sunlight is the best disinfectant. I do think there’s a value to open and thoughtful debate. Free speech as a general value is good, but sort of abstract. I think open, thoughtful, good-faith debate is a closely related but slightly better value. Sometimes it is fine to not host a discussion if one of the parties is just there to spew propaganda for example. Edit: removed a bit about Alan Berg, wasn’t familiar with his story. I don’t have anything to say other than, that’s just tragic.