8 ms·

Should we repeal the first amendment because people sometimes used racial or ethnic slurs? Or they deny the moon landing? Or say things that your preferred po

Should we repeal the first amendment because people sometimes used racial or ethnic slurs? Or they deny the moon landing? Or say things that your preferred political party happens to disagree with? Or maybe only things that YOU disagree with?

fixermark 11y ago
Nobody is recommending a repeal of the First Amendment. At best, the conversation is about whether orgs like Reddit have any obligation (moral, business, or otherwise) to allow people screaming racial or ethnic slurs to stand on (metaphorically speaking) their property and use their megaphones. Usenet still exists, and nobody is stopping people from using it. It's just not where trolls go to be heard anymore, because nobody is there to hear them. ;)
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  "Nobody wants to take away your right to free speech, we're just trying to create social norms that discourage, or hinder, the freedom to express views we don't like. Ignore the fact that social norms inevitably become codified in law."
  - babygoat 11y ago
    Reddit does not owe you free speech. You can say whatever you want, and they can choose not to broadcast it to millions of people.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      That's a non-sequitur to the claim that social norms (of the variety that Reddit is attempting to establish) tend to become codified into law, for better or worse. Of course, that's a non-sequitur to the claim that Reddit is an entity that has no obligation to be a platform for entirely-uncensored expression, though even that is a cop-out argument against those who cite Reddit as having a reputation of free expression. Basically, this whole discussion is gibberish.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Or does it? Now, no company would owe you freedom of speech just for existing, but in the previous promises Reddit made, it did promise to be a bastion of free speech. It wasn't an explicit contract that they can be taken to court over, but do we really want to say that, unless there is an explicit contract, there cannot be any agreements?
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Can't they change their mind?
        Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Can you change your mind on a verbal agreement? That a court is likely to not find sufficient evidence to enforce it doesn't make changing you mind about it right/ethical once you've gained benefit from the agreement. If I get the community to help me build a orphanage, it is wrong for me to decide I rather do something else with the building once built.
        ectoplasm 11y ago
        I believe you're conflating laws which are objective and shared with morals/ethics which are subjective and personal. Something legal to you and me can be unethical to you while being ethical to me. Something illegal to you and me can be unethical to you while being ethical to me.
        boomshucka 11y ago
        I believe you are confused about the law. Laws are not objective. There are many, many cases brought before the courts where the facts are not in dispute.
        ectoplasm 11y ago
        Can you clarify?
    - nzp 11y ago
      Technically Reddit doesn't owe anyone anything. However, if an outlet is significant enough, their private right to censor becomes, for all practical purposes, political censorship of public space. If you have no practical means of exercising your right to free speech, it might as well not exist, because it is then just a dead letter on a piece of paper. (Whether Reddit is actually significant to such an extent is debatable.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- exstudent2 11y ago
  When the value of that property is determined entierly by the size and engagement of the community using it (a community that gathered largely around the ethos of Free Speech), it's not necessarily a smart thing to attack them. It's quite trendy now to push the meaning of censorship all the way back to a legal definition around the first amendment and say things like private companies can't censor people. That's simply not true. Removing information is censorship. Reddit was born on the spirit of freedom of speech and repealing it, while fully with their rights, will be the death of Reddit.
  - babygoat 11y ago
    > Reddit was born on the spirit of freedom of speech Was it though? "back when I was running things, if there was anything racist, sexist, or homophobic I'd ban it right away. I don't think there's a place for such things on reddit. Of course, now that reddit is much bigger, I understand if maybe things are different." http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967721/reddit-yishan-wong-ellen-pao http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967721/reddit-yishan-wong-elle...
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      It was, right after the new CEO said it's NOT a bastion of free speech someone found a quote from a founder saying that it was precisely that: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3eflt?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conten... Also first sentence on http://www.reddit.com/rules http://www.reddit.com/rules "reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules"
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Better example would be anti-vaxxers. You can point to actual cases of dead children and say this is the penalty of free speech. Speaking of which, why is anti-vaxxer rhetoric protected even though it contributes to the harm of children. I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric).
- msandford 11y ago
  > I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric). That's very interesting. Could you elaborate please? I'd really like to know more.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Images/videos are considered speech. There was actually a few different First Amendment cases concerning different images/videos being made illegal, but of those only one ban clearly stuck (a second ban was struck down but reinstated with slightly different laws and is still waiting a second SCOTUS ruling on it). (As a side note to any lawyers, is text protected speech when it originates as a description of an actual harmful act of which video/images would not be legal speech? I don't think it was made illegal, but I wonder if it could be (at least if it were at some level of detail).)
    - msandford 11y ago
      Ah, okay that makes a lot more sense then. Thanks for sharing!

fixermark 11y ago

Nobody is recommending a repeal of the First Amendment. At best, the conversation is about whether orgs like Reddit have any obligation (moral, business, or otherwise) to allow people screaming racial or ethnic slurs to stand on (metaphorically speaking) their property and use their megaphones. Usenet still exists, and nobody is stopping people from using it. It's just not where trolls go to be heard anymore, because nobody is there to hear them. ;)

pdeuchler 11y ago
"Nobody wants to take away your right to free speech, we're just trying to create social norms that discourage, or hinder, the freedom to express views we don't like. Ignore the fact that social norms inevitably become codified in law."
- babygoat 11y ago
  Reddit does not owe you free speech. You can say whatever you want, and they can choose not to broadcast it to millions of people.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    That's a non-sequitur to the claim that social norms (of the variety that Reddit is attempting to establish) tend to become codified into law, for better or worse. Of course, that's a non-sequitur to the claim that Reddit is an entity that has no obligation to be a platform for entirely-uncensored expression, though even that is a cop-out argument against those who cite Reddit as having a reputation of free expression. Basically, this whole discussion is gibberish.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Or does it? Now, no company would owe you freedom of speech just for existing, but in the previous promises Reddit made, it did promise to be a bastion of free speech. It wasn't an explicit contract that they can be taken to court over, but do we really want to say that, unless there is an explicit contract, there cannot be any agreements?
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Can't they change their mind?
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Can you change your mind on a verbal agreement? That a court is likely to not find sufficient evidence to enforce it doesn't make changing you mind about it right/ethical once you've gained benefit from the agreement. If I get the community to help me build a orphanage, it is wrong for me to decide I rather do something else with the building once built.
        ectoplasm 11y ago
        I believe you're conflating laws which are objective and shared with morals/ethics which are subjective and personal. Something legal to you and me can be unethical to you while being ethical to me. Something illegal to you and me can be unethical to you while being ethical to me.
        boomshucka 11y ago
        I believe you are confused about the law. Laws are not objective. There are many, many cases brought before the courts where the facts are not in dispute.
        ectoplasm 11y ago
        Can you clarify?
  - nzp 11y ago
    Technically Reddit doesn't owe anyone anything. However, if an outlet is significant enough, their private right to censor becomes, for all practical purposes, political censorship of public space. If you have no practical means of exercising your right to free speech, it might as well not exist, because it is then just a dead letter on a piece of paper. (Whether Reddit is actually significant to such an extent is debatable.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
exstudent2 11y ago
When the value of that property is determined entierly by the size and engagement of the community using it (a community that gathered largely around the ethos of Free Speech), it's not necessarily a smart thing to attack them. It's quite trendy now to push the meaning of censorship all the way back to a legal definition around the first amendment and say things like private companies can't censor people. That's simply not true. Removing information is censorship. Reddit was born on the spirit of freedom of speech and repealing it, while fully with their rights, will be the death of Reddit.
- babygoat 11y ago
  > Reddit was born on the spirit of freedom of speech Was it though? "back when I was running things, if there was anything racist, sexist, or homophobic I'd ban it right away. I don't think there's a place for such things on reddit. Of course, now that reddit is much bigger, I understand if maybe things are different." http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967721/reddit-yishan-wong-ellen-pao http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967721/reddit-yishan-wong-elle...
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    It was, right after the new CEO said it's NOT a bastion of free speech someone found a quote from a founder saying that it was precisely that: https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/ct3eflt?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/conten... Also first sentence on http://www.reddit.com/rules http://www.reddit.com/rules "reddit is a pretty open platform and free speech place, but there are a few rules"

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

Better example would be anti-vaxxers. You can point to actual cases of dead children and say this is the penalty of free speech. Speaking of which, why is anti-vaxxer rhetoric protected even though it contributes to the harm of children. I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric).

msandford 11y ago
> I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric). That's very interesting. Could you elaborate please? I'd really like to know more.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Images/videos are considered speech. There was actually a few different First Amendment cases concerning different images/videos being made illegal, but of those only one ban clearly stuck (a second ban was struck down but reinstated with slightly different laws and is still waiting a second SCOTUS ruling on it). (As a side note to any lawyers, is text protected speech when it originates as a description of an actual harmful act of which video/images would not be legal speech? I don't think it was made illegal, but I wonder if it could be (at least if it were at some level of detail).)
  - msandford 11y ago
    Ah, okay that makes a lot more sense then. Thanks for sharing!