4 ms·

> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. This is a commonly parroted error. The First Amendment to the US Constitution which prote

> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. This is a commonly parroted error. The First Amendment to the US Constitution which protects freedom of expression is mostly between the gov't and you... ...but the CONCEPT of freedom of speech is an ethical concept that goes well beyond the roll of government. It is about ensuring the rights of minority speech and controversial opinions. Speech that makes you uncomfortable can be some of the most valuable speech people need to hear. I often find it telling when you ask someone who favors social media censorship if they would prefer themselves be shielded from uncomfortable speech, or if they specifically want everyone to be shielded. Without fail, they want censorship for everyone else - not themselves.

graypegg 4y ago
I see you’re coming at this from a moral stance where I do agree with you, it’s not great on a personal level to not be challenged. But does that apply here? We’re talking about private citizens, running a publication platform. If you went to your local community newsletter, asked to put in an article saying “this community is full of bigots, and none of you want to hear about it” and they deny including your article, there’s no legal recourse for you. Sure, there’s the ideals of the marketplace of ideas, but there’s also very real restrictions on speech because society wouldn’t function if everyone was required to hear and consider every voice. I’m also not American, so I’m no expert here obviously. I could be totally wrong on this and maybe there is legal precedent for forcing a private publication to publish something after some sort of legal free speech complaint.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  There is also the concept that once corporations reach as certain SCALE, then they ethically have some responsibilities towards the principles society asks of government. In 1776, a person shouting obscenities in a pub, would get duly thrown out. He had the freedom to shout in the park, at a coffee shop, in the library, or in any of a thousand other places in town. Today, political discourse takes places almost entirely online and via private corporations. Google isn't a pub on 2nd ave and 54th street. It's ALL THE ESTABLISHMENTS IN TOWN. ...or at least it, along with 3-4 other of the global tech oligopolies. It's important to note that while massive global tech companies are not formally part of government, they are very integrated with gov't through lobbying, gov't contracts, and direct political sponsorship, and a variety of other individual contacts and arrangements. As a result of their SCALE of their control, they implicitly inherit some ethical obligations to allow uncomfortable speech to occur. I don't believe in limitless speech rights - but the current limits are vague and selectively enforced and thus easily susceptible to political bias - which is the most dangerous kind of censorship.

graypegg 4y ago

I see you’re coming at this from a moral stance where I do agree with you, it’s not great on a personal level to not be challenged. But does that apply here? We’re talking about private citizens, running a publication platform. If you went to your local community newsletter, asked to put in an article saying “this community is full of bigots, and none of you want to hear about it” and they deny including your article, there’s no legal recourse for you. Sure, there’s the ideals of the marketplace of ideas, but there’s also very real restrictions on speech because society wouldn’t function if everyone was required to hear and consider every voice. I’m also not American, so I’m no expert here obviously. I could be totally wrong on this and maybe there is legal precedent for forcing a private publication to publish something after some sort of legal free speech complaint.

koheripbal 4y ago
There is also the concept that once corporations reach as certain SCALE, then they ethically have some responsibilities towards the principles society asks of government. In 1776, a person shouting obscenities in a pub, would get duly thrown out. He had the freedom to shout in the park, at a coffee shop, in the library, or in any of a thousand other places in town. Today, political discourse takes places almost entirely online and via private corporations. Google isn't a pub on 2nd ave and 54th street. It's ALL THE ESTABLISHMENTS IN TOWN. ...or at least it, along with 3-4 other of the global tech oligopolies. It's important to note that while massive global tech companies are not formally part of government, they are very integrated with gov't through lobbying, gov't contracts, and direct political sponsorship, and a variety of other individual contacts and arrangements. As a result of their SCALE of their control, they implicitly inherit some ethical obligations to allow uncomfortable speech to occur. I don't believe in limitless speech rights - but the current limits are vague and selectively enforced and thus easily susceptible to political bias - which is the most dangerous kind of censorship.