5 ms·

The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a fail

by jmye 3y ago

The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. You’ve inadvertently stumbled on the exact reason that “free speech absolutism” is absolutely asinine nonsense (Musk’s incoherent/idiotic implementation aside), and why some speech restrictions should at least be discussed, even outside of a US/First Amendment context.

SenAnder 3y ago
> If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech This neatly avoids the question of whether we should want advertisers and multi-billion dollar corporations to be gatekeepers of the public sphere. As usual, laissez-faire when things are going my way, anti-discrimination and disparate impact laws when they're not.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. Advertisers having control over them is a consequence of this. If you actually go into town IRL and talk in the public square, no advertiser will be able to silence you because the public square is actually public. Or if you use an actually public means of communication like the postal service, again you won't be cut out because some corporate advertisers consider your speech bad for business. This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces.
  - SenAnder 3y ago
    Public sphere as in the places and platforms hosting most public conversations these days. I am aware they are privately owned.
    - defrost 3y ago
      That Rubicon was crossed long before mass general public internet forums - Mall Cops policing privately owned shopping malls were enforcing the control of the spaces where most of the public convened .. particularly in smaller population centres that had seen their local shopping areas razed to the ground by price cutting mega stores.
  - ytoawwhra92 3y ago
    > This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces. I disagree with this. A very common example is a person saying a thing outside of work, that thing being brought to the attention of their employer, and their employer firing them. People know this happens, and it creates a chilling effect on what they say regardless of whether they're in a public or actually-not-public space.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "public", because it is often used for government provided things. Many private establishments are public spheres, the most common example are Pubs - short for Public Houses. So you have completely misunderstood the word and arguing from your mistaken assumption.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I haven't misunderstood anything. In a "public house" you can be kicked out of the owner doesn't like what you're saying, because it's private property. In places which are actually public, like a town square, this isn't the case. I understand that it is conventional to speak of some places that are private property as being public, but they are not public in the sense that actually counts for the protection of free speech.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Some private properties really are part of the public sphere, counting for the protection of free speech. The main example being printed newspapers, that will print opinion pieces sent to them, even when they go against the private owner's interest, even when the opinion piece comes from a political enemy. They are privately owned public forums. Other examples of public spheres in private hands are the internet provider you're using to read my comment and write your own reply. The ISP doesn't interfere with your free speech. E-Mail is another great example of a public sphere. You can freely send your opinion to any and all the people you want. In some countries, all unexploited nature is considered public space. Trump's Twitter was deemed a public forum. It has nothing to do with government ownership, even though most physical public forums are government owned, such as parks, streets and squares.
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    [dead]
lmm 3y ago
> The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what we're doing fundamentally different. In some ways it's worse - a Thai accused of slandering the King at least gets their day in court and can make their case for exhoneration and/or plead for forgiveness, while someone who is passed around on a list of "terrible human beings" gets no such chance. "Economic loser" is excessively trivialising very real harm - potentially life threatening in a country that lacks public healthcare and similar basic social protections.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. Help me understand what you mean by this. To me it sounds like saying somebody was not shot, he just didn't step out of the way of the bullet. Do you mean people are not prevented from speaking because their mouths aren't literally sewn shut?
  - lmm 3y ago
    > To me it sounds like saying somebody was not shot, he just didn't step out of the way of the bullet. Do you mean people are not prevented from speaking because their mouths aren't literally sewn shut? Exactly. So "just because something bad happened to you after your speech doesn't mean you didn't have free speech" is thoroughly fallacious.
- eapressoandcats 3y ago
  If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Once you believe that then really all we are doing is haggling about where the line should be… which is something we’ve been doing for generations. Even if we’re not talking about official action and are talking about group vigilantism, I think we’d agree that if someone had well documented nazi and racist activities outside of work that it would be ok for people to ostracize that person? That just leads back to haggling about boundaries and that’s very hard to sort out without being very specific.

by jmye 3y ago

SenAnder 3y ago

> If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech This neatly avoids the question of whether we should want advertisers and multi-billion dollar corporations to be gatekeepers of the public sphere. As usual, laissez-faire when things are going my way, anti-discrimination and disparate impact laws when they're not.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. Advertisers having control over them is a consequence of this. If you actually go into town IRL and talk in the public square, no advertiser will be able to silence you because the public square is actually public. Or if you use an actually public means of communication like the postal service, again you won't be cut out because some corporate advertisers consider your speech bad for business. This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  Public sphere as in the places and platforms hosting most public conversations these days. I am aware they are privately owned.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That Rubicon was crossed long before mass general public internet forums - Mall Cops policing privately owned shopping malls were enforcing the control of the spaces where most of the public convened .. particularly in smaller population centres that had seen their local shopping areas razed to the ground by price cutting mega stores.
- ytoawwhra92 3y ago
  > This phenomenon of corporate advertisers being gatekeepers of the "public sphere" only exists in actually-not-public spaces. I disagree with this. A very common example is a person saying a thing outside of work, that thing being brought to the attention of their employer, and their employer firing them. People know this happens, and it creates a chilling effect on what they say regardless of whether they're in a public or actually-not-public space.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Our "public spheres" are in fact not public, but rather are private property. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word "public", because it is often used for government provided things. Many private establishments are public spheres, the most common example are Pubs - short for Public Houses. So you have completely misunderstood the word and arguing from your mistaken assumption.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I haven't misunderstood anything. In a "public house" you can be kicked out of the owner doesn't like what you're saying, because it's private property. In places which are actually public, like a town square, this isn't the case. I understand that it is conventional to speak of some places that are private property as being public, but they are not public in the sense that actually counts for the protection of free speech.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      Some private properties really are part of the public sphere, counting for the protection of free speech. The main example being printed newspapers, that will print opinion pieces sent to them, even when they go against the private owner's interest, even when the opinion piece comes from a political enemy. They are privately owned public forums. Other examples of public spheres in private hands are the internet provider you're using to read my comment and write your own reply. The ISP doesn't interfere with your free speech. E-Mail is another great example of a public sphere. You can freely send your opinion to any and all the people you want. In some countries, all unexploited nature is considered public space. Trump's Twitter was deemed a public forum. It has nothing to do with government ownership, even though most physical public forums are government owned, such as parks, streets and squares.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  [dead]

lmm 3y ago

> The “ideal” of free speech would uphold everyone being able to speak in whatever manner they choose. If you’re an economic loser as a result, that is not a failure of free speech, that is a failure of society to protect you from free speech. Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. The fact that we impose negative consequences for undesirable speech via different mechanisms than the direct actions of government agents does not make what we're doing fundamentally different. In some ways it's worse - a Thai accused of slandering the King at least gets their day in court and can make their case for exhoneration and/or plead for forgiveness, while someone who is passed around on a list of "terrible human beings" gets no such chance. "Economic loser" is excessively trivialising very real harm - potentially life threatening in a country that lacks public healthcare and similar basic social protections.

carlosjobim 3y ago
> Not even the most repressive societies physically prevent people from speaking - they just impose distinctly unpleasant consequences on those who speak in undesirable things. Help me understand what you mean by this. To me it sounds like saying somebody was not shot, he just didn't step out of the way of the bullet. Do you mean people are not prevented from speaking because their mouths aren't literally sewn shut?
- lmm 3y ago
  > To me it sounds like saying somebody was not shot, he just didn't step out of the way of the bullet. Do you mean people are not prevented from speaking because their mouths aren't literally sewn shut? Exactly. So "just because something bad happened to you after your speech doesn't mean you didn't have free speech" is thoroughly fallacious.
eapressoandcats 3y ago
If you think people in oppressive regimes get due process in court then I have a bridge to sell you. I think trivializing harm is bad but at the end of the day I think you will concede that there is a speech line which can be crossed beyond which you will be fired. Otherwise people could just be cruel and mean to everyone around them and face no consequences. Once you believe that then really all we are doing is haggling about where the line should be… which is something we’ve been doing for generations. Even if we’re not talking about official action and are talking about group vigilantism, I think we’d agree that if someone had well documented nazi and racist activities outside of work that it would be ok for people to ostracize that person? That just leads back to haggling about boundaries and that’s very hard to sort out without being very specific.