5 ms·

If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor you do not support free speech at all. While I disagree with their decision to proh

If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor you do not support free speech at all. While I disagree with their decision to prohibit photographs of nipples, doing so is unfortunately quite prudent lest US politicians decide to meddle.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
There is a difference between supporting free speech and supporting it on a particular platform. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to force the NYT to say what I want. Similarly, it doesn't require FB to post stuff it disagrees with; they're completely within their rights to censor this stuff.
- pookleblinky 17y ago
  "censor" A private citizen or company may choose not to broadcast whatever it likes, for whatever reason. This is not "censorship" except in the broadest and most meaningless possible sense. I agree with you, but to call it "censorship" is to cede part of the argument.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    There's an important difference you're glossing over. If I post a photgraph to Facebook and Facebook takes it down, that's censorship. If I don't post the photograph in the first place, that's not censorship. That doesn't mean it's a violation of free speech or the first amendment, but we shouldn't redefine words like "censorship" just to gloss over all these issues.
- arebop 17y ago
  Is FB more like the NYT or the ATT telephone network? I think it's a stretch to claim that FB is "saying" the things that users post on walls. Perhaps a better offline metaphor would be a mall tossing out someone for wearing an objectionable t-shirt or handing out pamphlets.
- absconditus 17y ago
  I did not mean to imply that private censorship is forbidden by the first amendment. Freedom of speech is more than a legal right. It is an ideal that many of us support in all contexts.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    You're supporting it in the sense that "Someone who wants to broadcast a message in a particular medium has the right to decide how that medium is used." Plenty of bad examples -- Pepsi doesn't have the right to push their products in Coke's newsletter.
- okeumeni 17y ago
  After the Jewish haters, Facebook will have to deal with the Black haters, the neo Nazis, the anti abortion, the anti gays, the anti government, the fascists, the socialists, the chicken haters, the fast food advocates ... The list is endless, you can just run around and shut down all non straight opinion makers and by the way Facebook is not NYT.
Confusion 17y ago
You do not have the right to express any random 'opinion'. Slander is always defended as 'an opinion' and both juries and judges rightfully punish those guilty of slander. Holocaust denial is not 'an opinion': it is a blatant lie. There is no reason why spreading lies about historical facts should be less punishable then spreading lies about a companies' products. They both do damage and the cumulative damage of the first category is much more dangerous. The first amendment is not there to allow idiots, fearmongers, demagogues and pussies to hide behind a twisted interpretation of the word 'opinion'. Neither uninformed statements that are false nor lies are opinions and neither is protected by the first amendment. We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie. The phrase "when they are informed" skips the step where they are somehow convinced of the truth of the information. Do you think that they "really know" the Holocaust happened and are actually lying, or do you think they're actually mistaken? If there's any significant chance of the latter (and if you think that Holocaust deniers are a serious problem, which I don't necessarily agree with), then figuring out what evidence would be convincing is important.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Of course they are convinced they are telling the truth, but that is not an acceptable excuse. If you go down that road, you can't put anyone in prison anymore: "they were just born and raised that way". A holocaust denier, or General Relativity denier for what that matters, arrives at his conviction through contingent factors that are nigh impossible to trace. Fortunately, that also isn't required. As in the case of the criminal, we still hold them accountable for their convictions and the damage that those convictions do, irrespective of their capacity to understand why it is wrong. We like to believe that punishment teaches and that even criminals consider their punishments fair. Fact is: they don't consider them fair and they don't learn. Yet we keep punishing them, because locking them away makes life much nicer for the rest of us.
swombat 17y ago
If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor you do not support free speech at all. I support their right to express it. I also support Facebook's right to remove them from the virtual, private premises for expressing it. I also support their right to complain that Facebook deleted their account because they were expressing hate-speech. I also support our collective right to side with Facebook on this one.
- absconditus 17y ago
  I support Facebook's right to censor them as well. I would not agree with their decision to do so, but it is their decision to make. I write this not because I agree with Holocaust deniers. What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group? A group that discusses differences in intelligence between ethnic groups?
  - swombat 17y ago
    What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group? Then I would not support their removal. I don't have any credible evidence that 9/11 truthers are rooting for mass murder on a global scale, so I believe they're harmless.
    - absconditus 17y ago
      I realized that this wasn't a good example after reading your comment a second time. I added an additional example moments later. Facebook is free to shape their community in any manner they see fit. If their goal is simply to have the largest audience possible then perhaps being overly political correct serves their purposes well. I happen to believe that a community is much more interesting when distasteful views are not censored. I'd much rather give users the option to suppress groups that they do not wish to see.
- absconditus 17y ago
  Do you also agree that Google has the same rights to censor their search results in a similar manner? Would you agree with a decision to suppress results which lead to "hate speech" websites?

byrneseyeview 17y ago

There is a difference between supporting free speech and supporting it on a particular platform. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to force the NYT to say what I want. Similarly, it doesn't require FB to post stuff it disagrees with; they're completely within their rights to censor this stuff.

pookleblinky 17y ago
"censor" A private citizen or company may choose not to broadcast whatever it likes, for whatever reason. This is not "censorship" except in the broadest and most meaningless possible sense. I agree with you, but to call it "censorship" is to cede part of the argument.
- philwelch 17y ago
  There's an important difference you're glossing over. If I post a photgraph to Facebook and Facebook takes it down, that's censorship. If I don't post the photograph in the first place, that's not censorship. That doesn't mean it's a violation of free speech or the first amendment, but we shouldn't redefine words like "censorship" just to gloss over all these issues.
arebop 17y ago
Is FB more like the NYT or the ATT telephone network? I think it's a stretch to claim that FB is "saying" the things that users post on walls. Perhaps a better offline metaphor would be a mall tossing out someone for wearing an objectionable t-shirt or handing out pamphlets.
absconditus 17y ago
I did not mean to imply that private censorship is forbidden by the first amendment. Freedom of speech is more than a legal right. It is an ideal that many of us support in all contexts.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  You're supporting it in the sense that "Someone who wants to broadcast a message in a particular medium has the right to decide how that medium is used." Plenty of bad examples -- Pepsi doesn't have the right to push their products in Coke's newsletter.
okeumeni 17y ago
After the Jewish haters, Facebook will have to deal with the Black haters, the neo Nazis, the anti abortion, the anti gays, the anti government, the fascists, the socialists, the chicken haters, the fast food advocates ... The list is endless, you can just run around and shut down all non straight opinion makers and by the way Facebook is not NYT.

Confusion 17y ago

You do not have the right to express any random 'opinion'. Slander is always defended as 'an opinion' and both juries and judges rightfully punish those guilty of slander. Holocaust denial is not 'an opinion': it is a blatant lie. There is no reason why spreading lies about historical facts should be less punishable then spreading lies about a companies' products. They both do damage and the cumulative damage of the first category is much more dangerous. The first amendment is not there to allow idiots, fearmongers, demagogues and pussies to hide behind a twisted interpretation of the word 'opinion'. Neither uninformed statements that are false nor lies are opinions and neither is protected by the first amendment. We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie.

randallsquared 17y ago
We forgive those that utter uninformed statements, 'for they know not what they do'. When they are informed of what they do and insist on repeating the statement, it becomes a lie. The phrase "when they are informed" skips the step where they are somehow convinced of the truth of the information. Do you think that they "really know" the Holocaust happened and are actually lying, or do you think they're actually mistaken? If there's any significant chance of the latter (and if you think that Holocaust deniers are a serious problem, which I don't necessarily agree with), then figuring out what evidence would be convincing is important.
- Confusion 17y ago
  Of course they are convinced they are telling the truth, but that is not an acceptable excuse. If you go down that road, you can't put anyone in prison anymore: "they were just born and raised that way". A holocaust denier, or General Relativity denier for what that matters, arrives at his conviction through contingent factors that are nigh impossible to trace. Fortunately, that also isn't required. As in the case of the criminal, we still hold them accountable for their convictions and the damage that those convictions do, irrespective of their capacity to understand why it is wrong. We like to believe that punishment teaches and that even criminals consider their punishments fair. Fact is: they don't consider them fair and they don't learn. Yet we keep punishing them, because locking them away makes life much nicer for the rest of us.

swombat 17y ago

If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor you do not support free speech at all. I support their right to express it. I also support Facebook's right to remove them from the virtual, private premises for expressing it. I also support their right to complain that Facebook deleted their account because they were expressing hate-speech. I also support our collective right to side with Facebook on this one.

absconditus 17y ago
I support Facebook's right to censor them as well. I would not agree with their decision to do so, but it is their decision to make. I write this not because I agree with Holocaust deniers. What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group? A group that discusses differences in intelligence between ethnic groups?
- swombat 17y ago
  What if the issue were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist group? Then I would not support their removal. I don't have any credible evidence that 9/11 truthers are rooting for mass murder on a global scale, so I believe they're harmless.
  - absconditus 17y ago
    I realized that this wasn't a good example after reading your comment a second time. I added an additional example moments later. Facebook is free to shape their community in any manner they see fit. If their goal is simply to have the largest audience possible then perhaps being overly political correct serves their purposes well. I happen to believe that a community is much more interesting when distasteful views are not censored. I'd much rather give users the option to suppress groups that they do not wish to see.
absconditus 17y ago
Do you also agree that Google has the same rights to censor their search results in a similar manner? Would you agree with a decision to suppress results which lead to "hate speech" websites?