3 ms·

What's ironic to me is that requiring colleges or websites or whatever to give literally anyone a platform seems like it's infringing on _their_ speech. The arg

by saghm 3y ago

What's ironic to me is that requiring colleges or websites or whatever to give literally anyone a platform seems like it's infringing on _their_ speech. The argument seems to be that "speech" includes "access to a platform to amplify one's view", but if that's true, then doesn't the owner of the platform have freedom over that "speech" as well? Forcing someone to use their power of speech to say things for others sounds much more like a violation of "freedom of speech" to me.

Georgelemental 3y ago
Would your view be affected by whether… - the university itself is hosting the speaker, versus a student group? - the university receives taxpayer funding?
- saghm 3y ago
  > the university receives taxpayer funding? No more than the fact that most households in the US received stimulus checks doesn't give me the right to demand time to pontificate to their family about whatever I want.
threatofrain 3y ago
It depends. Ought a society be able to create a policy to allow an exception to speech liability to encourage the growth of platform companies? Or, when YT hosts a pirated version of Naruto, are they responsible? Because then, in some sense, what's hosted on YT is not YT speaking. But in another confusing sense, society sometimes sees it that way, so if YT becomes known for hosting unpleasant things it will damage their reputation overall.
- saghm 3y ago
  You're conflating several different things here: civil liability, intellectual property, and a constitutional right to free speech without government interference. If you say something damaging to someone else (or violate their IP, I guess), and they successfully sue for damages, that's not the government limiting your speech, it's the government protecting the rights of someone else, because your rights don't trump anyone else's. Not being allowed to speak at a university isn't the same because you don't have a fundamental right to speak on other's property; in the same way that "freedom of speech" doesn't give you blanket protections for infringing IP, freedom of assembly doesn't give you blanket protections for trespassing. In both cases, the key point is that you have the right to say _what_ you want, but _where_ you can say it still needs to avoid infringing on others rights.

by saghm 3y ago

Georgelemental 3y ago

Would your view be affected by whether… - the university itself is hosting the speaker, versus a student group? - the university receives taxpayer funding?

saghm 3y ago
> the university receives taxpayer funding? No more than the fact that most households in the US received stimulus checks doesn't give me the right to demand time to pontificate to their family about whatever I want.

threatofrain 3y ago

It depends. Ought a society be able to create a policy to allow an exception to speech liability to encourage the growth of platform companies? Or, when YT hosts a pirated version of Naruto, are they responsible? Because then, in some sense, what's hosted on YT is not YT speaking. But in another confusing sense, society sometimes sees it that way, so if YT becomes known for hosting unpleasant things it will damage their reputation overall.

saghm 3y ago
You're conflating several different things here: civil liability, intellectual property, and a constitutional right to free speech without government interference. If you say something damaging to someone else (or violate their IP, I guess), and they successfully sue for damages, that's not the government limiting your speech, it's the government protecting the rights of someone else, because your rights don't trump anyone else's. Not being allowed to speak at a university isn't the same because you don't have a fundamental right to speak on other's property; in the same way that "freedom of speech" doesn't give you blanket protections for infringing IP, freedom of assembly doesn't give you blanket protections for trespassing. In both cases, the key point is that you have the right to say _what_ you want, but _where_ you can say it still needs to avoid infringing on others rights.