4 ms·

Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?

by Yeul 1y ago

mdhb 1y ago
Just never in a logically consistent manner.
- NilMostChill 1y ago
  and usually in a context where the concept they are thinking of (the constitution) doesn't apply (anywhere that isn't the government)
  - orangecat 1y ago
    Free speech isn't good because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's good.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Sure it is. Lots of us also go on about private property rights and freedom of association. Apple is restricting the behavior of entities doing business through them on a platform they own. The logic is that you remain free to speak - elsewhere. Meanwhile Apple remains free not to do business with you if you can't or won't accept their terms. (Well really the legal argument is that Apple isn't the government and so the first amendment doesn't bind their policies but there's an ideological aspect in addition to the legal one.) The issue missed by such an analysis is the outsized impact the megacorp has. Without strong competition (ie not a duopoly or even an oligopoly) regulation is required to protect consumers against practices that otherwise would be financially discouraged. There are also a few other blindspots people here tend to have regarding regulation. In particular that sometimes detrimental behaviors exist that are perversely incentivized rather than discouraged by the market despite being obviously worse for consumers. A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget that such things are even within the realm of possibility.
paxys 1y ago
Every American is pro free speech for the kind of speech they like.
LanceH 1y ago
There is also the freedom to engage in a contact. The freedom of speech isn't restricted, apple just isn't providing a platform to speak on. This is an anti trust issue balance against two parties ability to be bound by contract.
madeofpalk 1y ago
If you extend "speech" to "any kind of action an individual or company can do", then no. There's plenty of laws regulations that restrict what you can do in USA.
freedomben 1y ago
As an American who thinks free speech is one of the most important rights we have, I wish the answer to your question would be a collective "yes" but unfortunately it is not.
- baby 1y ago
  In America free speech is always limited to what "I find acceptable". There's an infinite number of things that lots of Americans will find unacceptable. Swearing is beeped/censored everywhere (even on youtube), songs release "explicit" and "clean" versions, nipples are blurred on TV, some words you can't say even in an educational or karaoke setting (N-word, R-word, etc.)
  - freedomben 1y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but I do think it's important to distinguish between a censored swear word or nipple, and taking down an entire video because it mentions the Lab Leak Theory at a time when that was politically unacceptable. The former may be suppressing a small element of the "speech" but it's not (for the most part) restricting the expression/transmission of ideas. It's also a very firm and defined standard that is unambiguous (i.e. here is a list of words you can't say, use substitutes to convey meaning v. here is a list of opinions you aren't allowed to express). The latter on the other hand is absolutely the suppression of ideas, which IMHO is what "free speech" is really about and why it's so important.
- rzwitserloot 1y ago
  I don't understand what you're on about. The only laws that the USA has on the books that says anything about this are either [A] recently written state laws written as vehicles to virtue signal, particularly by DeSantis in Florida, or [B] the exact opposite. For example, the first amendment indicates that apple doesn't just have the right to tell its users of its app store to say nothing about alternate payment methods. It goes further than that: The government must not tell Apple anything else. That's stretching 1A a bit; more likely 1A says nothing at all about what Apple is doing here. "Free Speech" is a thing americans are fond of saying, but unfortunately, considering that 1A is often called 'the free speech amendment', what that actually means is usually unclear, and in this day and age, that means it gets weaponized: Folks start harping on about free speech and pick whatever of the many conflicting definitions so happens to suit their needs at that exact moment. Evelyn Beatrice Hall was british, not american. She's the author of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The thing about 1A and free speech in general: Forcing somebody to say something is just as bad as forcing somebody not to say something. And, once you start talking about non-governmental entities and 'free speech', those two things are at odds. After all, if the government tells some social network that they MUST NOT ban some user or delete some posting, that is compelled speech, and that's what I meant with '1A means the opposite of what you / this case / most americans think it means'. 1A protects the right of private companies to restrict your speech. It does not protect your right to have your speech protected from being suppressed, deleted, or otherwise restrained by private actors.
bloppe 1y ago
Technically, the first amendment applies only to state actors, not private entities. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Hudgens v. NLRB, and many other cases that upheld this interpretation. Private companies like Apple can restrict free speech on their platforms legally (at least as far as the first amendment is concerned). That said, I believe in the principle of free speech, especially as envisioned by Tim Berners Lee for the Web. I wish more Americans could adhere to those principles even when the speech is not to their taste. Certainly feels like a lot of cultural backsliding happening.
- rzwitserloot 1y ago
  > Technically, the first amendment applies only to state actors, not private entities. That's probably not what the person you're responding to is talking about. Americans have this unfortunate tendency to harp on and on about 'free speech' in contexts where the first amendment obviously does not apply, or, even more intriguingly/ironically, where the first amendment pretty clearly states the exact opposite. For example, if some non-government-owned platform (such as a social network) bans a user, and that user says "My free speech rights are being infringed". Whereas what the 1A actually states is the exact opposite: That platform has the right to ban that user, and the government is constitutionally restrained: If the government were to make a law that forces this social network to unban this user, that'd be the 1A violation. Then there are only 3 options: 1. That user wildly misunderstands free speech. And given how common this is, 'most americans' is perhaps [citation needed] but the sentiment is understandable. It's not just that "My free speech!" is so common, it's also that articles about some incident pretty much never talk about this. Lawyers, legal wonks, legal podcasts that sort of thing - they talk about it, but, niche audience. 2. The meaning of 'free speech' in the sentence 'this social network has banned me; my free speech is being infringed' is not referring to 1A but to the concept as a general principle; a principle that is orthogonal, or even mutually exclusive with, the definition of 'free speech' the way 1A intends it. 3. They know exactly what 1A means but they are lying through their teeth in order to get some internet group ragin' going on. If we make a habit of assuming good intentions, the nicest choice is option 2. The somewhat famous "Section 230" covers part of this, and explains some of the pragmatic reasoning behind MCAC v Halleck: If you hold private companies responsible for having infringed free speech rights, then private companies are going to bend over backwards making clear they are not going to moderate. Anything. For any reason. Legal reasons, you see.
chgs 1y ago
Most people who go on about free speech are the ones who clamp down the most on it and are massive snowflakes when people decide not to buy their stuff because of their speech.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Sorry, Fox News changed its mind in January. Come back in 2 years and they'll be back to "pro free speech" (to mock minorities).

Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?

by Yeul 1y ago

Aren't Americans always going on about free speech?

mdhb 1y ago

Just never in a logically consistent manner.

NilMostChill 1y ago
and usually in a context where the concept they are thinking of (the constitution) doesn't apply (anywhere that isn't the government)
- orangecat 1y ago
  Free speech isn't good because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's good.
fc417fc802 1y ago
Sure it is. Lots of us also go on about private property rights and freedom of association. Apple is restricting the behavior of entities doing business through them on a platform they own. The logic is that you remain free to speak - elsewhere. Meanwhile Apple remains free not to do business with you if you can't or won't accept their terms. (Well really the legal argument is that Apple isn't the government and so the first amendment doesn't bind their policies but there's an ideological aspect in addition to the legal one.) The issue missed by such an analysis is the outsized impact the megacorp has. Without strong competition (ie not a duopoly or even an oligopoly) regulation is required to protect consumers against practices that otherwise would be financially discouraged. There are also a few other blindspots people here tend to have regarding regulation. In particular that sometimes detrimental behaviors exist that are perversely incentivized rather than discouraged by the market despite being obviously worse for consumers. A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget that such things are even within the realm of possibility.

paxys 1y ago

Every American is pro free speech for the kind of speech they like.

LanceH 1y ago

There is also the freedom to engage in a contact. The freedom of speech isn't restricted, apple just isn't providing a platform to speak on. This is an anti trust issue balance against two parties ability to be bound by contract.

madeofpalk 1y ago

If you extend "speech" to "any kind of action an individual or company can do", then no. There's plenty of laws regulations that restrict what you can do in USA.

freedomben 1y ago

As an American who thinks free speech is one of the most important rights we have, I wish the answer to your question would be a collective "yes" but unfortunately it is not.

baby 1y ago
In America free speech is always limited to what "I find acceptable". There's an infinite number of things that lots of Americans will find unacceptable. Swearing is beeped/censored everywhere (even on youtube), songs release "explicit" and "clean" versions, nipples are blurred on TV, some words you can't say even in an educational or karaoke setting (N-word, R-word, etc.)
- freedomben 1y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but I do think it's important to distinguish between a censored swear word or nipple, and taking down an entire video because it mentions the Lab Leak Theory at a time when that was politically unacceptable. The former may be suppressing a small element of the "speech" but it's not (for the most part) restricting the expression/transmission of ideas. It's also a very firm and defined standard that is unambiguous (i.e. here is a list of words you can't say, use substitutes to convey meaning v. here is a list of opinions you aren't allowed to express). The latter on the other hand is absolutely the suppression of ideas, which IMHO is what "free speech" is really about and why it's so important.
rzwitserloot 1y ago
I don't understand what you're on about. The only laws that the USA has on the books that says anything about this are either [A] recently written state laws written as vehicles to virtue signal, particularly by DeSantis in Florida, or [B] the exact opposite. For example, the first amendment indicates that apple doesn't just have the right to tell its users of its app store to say nothing about alternate payment methods. It goes further than that: The government must not tell Apple anything else. That's stretching 1A a bit; more likely 1A says nothing at all about what Apple is doing here. "Free Speech" is a thing americans are fond of saying, but unfortunately, considering that 1A is often called 'the free speech amendment', what that actually means is usually unclear, and in this day and age, that means it gets weaponized: Folks start harping on about free speech and pick whatever of the many conflicting definitions so happens to suit their needs at that exact moment. Evelyn Beatrice Hall was british, not american. She's the author of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The thing about 1A and free speech in general: Forcing somebody to say something is just as bad as forcing somebody not to say something. And, once you start talking about non-governmental entities and 'free speech', those two things are at odds. After all, if the government tells some social network that they MUST NOT ban some user or delete some posting, that is compelled speech, and that's what I meant with '1A means the opposite of what you / this case / most americans think it means'. 1A protects the right of private companies to restrict your speech. It does not protect your right to have your speech protected from being suppressed, deleted, or otherwise restrained by private actors.

bloppe 1y ago

Technically, the first amendment applies only to state actors, not private entities. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Hudgens v. NLRB, and many other cases that upheld this interpretation. Private companies like Apple can restrict free speech on their platforms legally (at least as far as the first amendment is concerned). That said, I believe in the principle of free speech, especially as envisioned by Tim Berners Lee for the Web. I wish more Americans could adhere to those principles even when the speech is not to their taste. Certainly feels like a lot of cultural backsliding happening.

rzwitserloot 1y ago
> Technically, the first amendment applies only to state actors, not private entities. That's probably not what the person you're responding to is talking about. Americans have this unfortunate tendency to harp on and on about 'free speech' in contexts where the first amendment obviously does not apply, or, even more intriguingly/ironically, where the first amendment pretty clearly states the exact opposite. For example, if some non-government-owned platform (such as a social network) bans a user, and that user says "My free speech rights are being infringed". Whereas what the 1A actually states is the exact opposite: That platform has the right to ban that user, and the government is constitutionally restrained: If the government were to make a law that forces this social network to unban this user, that'd be the 1A violation. Then there are only 3 options: 1. That user wildly misunderstands free speech. And given how common this is, 'most americans' is perhaps [citation needed] but the sentiment is understandable. It's not just that "My free speech!" is so common, it's also that articles about some incident pretty much never talk about this. Lawyers, legal wonks, legal podcasts that sort of thing - they talk about it, but, niche audience. 2. The meaning of 'free speech' in the sentence 'this social network has banned me; my free speech is being infringed' is not referring to 1A but to the concept as a general principle; a principle that is orthogonal, or even mutually exclusive with, the definition of 'free speech' the way 1A intends it. 3. They know exactly what 1A means but they are lying through their teeth in order to get some internet group ragin' going on. If we make a habit of assuming good intentions, the nicest choice is option 2. The somewhat famous "Section 230" covers part of this, and explains some of the pragmatic reasoning behind MCAC v Halleck: If you hold private companies responsible for having infringed free speech rights, then private companies are going to bend over backwards making clear they are not going to moderate. Anything. For any reason. Legal reasons, you see.

chgs 1y ago

Most people who go on about free speech are the ones who clamp down the most on it and are massive snowflakes when people decide not to buy their stuff because of their speech.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

Sorry, Fox News changed its mind in January. Come back in 2 years and they'll be back to "pro free speech" (to mock minorities).