Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 428 posts

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#391

Post by jmull »

rayiner wrote: post #388
jmull wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn’t purport to have its own viewpoint, or its own editorial stance. The central issue here is whether government officials can override the moderation policies of these companies. The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. Also, the…

> The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. The issue isn’t neutrality, but rather expression. The First Amendment protect’s a person’s expression. It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of th…

> It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times.

If that were true it would create a loophole so big that the first amendment would practically not exist. The President could require the New York Times to carry a daily editorial on the front page from the desk of the president, with just with an additional caveat "This editorial does not reflect the opinions of the NYT". The President could require TV stations to broadcast speeches from the president speaking in the Rose Garden.

> Could the government prohibit Google from promoting its own products first and hiding the sites of its competitors in search results? Almost certainly.

You're just pointing out that the free speech guarantees of the first amendment aren't absolute, which isn't in dispute as far as I know. It doesn't follow though, that therefore the first amendment allows the government officials to dictate any content they want to be published by media companies.

> Is the company purporting to communicate a message?

Well, when twitter adds a fact-check to a tweet, they are obviously communicating a message.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#392

Post by unethical_ban »

xigoi wrote: post #386
unethical_ban wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stereotypical conservative supports the right of businesses to do pretty much whatever the hell they want, but gets mad when Twitter or Facebook tries to moderate disinformation and hate speech. But they also hate government being useful or providing public services to anyone, so they would likely oppose a government-funded "public square" platform. And surely, they would be upset when that platform inevitably ha…

As I said, I'm not a conservative, so I can't reply to this.

You asked what point I was making.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#393

Post by kelseyfrog »

jchw wrote: post #367
freejazz wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"such as just being rude and flippant on purpose" How is that not trolling?

Trolling almost always involves fishing for a reaction by acting dishonestly or misleading. When you are simply rude and flippant on purpose, that's just being an asshole. If someone is rude to me, I don't say "ah, I just got trolled."

It sounds relatively straight forward to make it "Deceptive speech used to deliberately upset others or undermine discussion." Is that accurate and precise enough to cover your conceptualization of trolling?

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#394

Post by joshuamorton »

rhaksw wrote: post #278
joshuamorton wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you should stop ignoring the parts you don't accept, you're coming across as dishonest. What parts? > Specifically with the irony that while you decry "trust us," it is precisely what is required to accept your "moving of the needle a little bit." Not at all because, I have not argued for any particular movement . What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal that is more robust than "tru…

> I have not argued for any particular movement. What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal Why? Nobody said it's written in stone. Laws remain open to interpretation for as long as a judiciary exists. > there are fairly good examples of the needle being in other places in other nations and it being, generally speaking, fine. It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed…

> It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed

Not at all.

I mean yes I have opinions, but I'm not advocating for any particular opinion here. I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me". Why is the line where it is in the US better than the line a little to the left or the right of that? What makes the choice to ban the speech we do and allow the speech we do, as opposed to more or less socially optimal?

Fundamentally, I'm not asking you to anticipate my thinking, I'm asking you to catch up and engage with the questions I've already engaged with (some of which I asked upthread!). Because it is unsatisfying that the only answer you can provide to "why should we do things this way" is "trust us, the alternatives would be worse".

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#395

Post by rhaksw »

joshuamorton wrote: post #394
rhaksw wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not argued for any particular movement. What I'm asking for is a argument that the status quo is optimal Why? Nobody said it's written in stone. Laws remain open to interpretation for as long as a judiciary exists. > there are fairly good examples of the needle being in other places in other nations and it being, generally speaking, fine. It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed…

> It sounds like you have a particular idea about what should be changed Not at all. I mean yes I have opinions, but I'm not advocating for any particular opinion here. I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me". Why is the line where it is in the US better than the line a little to the left or the right of that? What makes the choice to ban the speech we…

> I'm asking for you to justify yours with something better than the ACLU president having said "trust me".

This article is from FIRE, not the ACLU. The ACLU now interprets civil liberties and rights to be potentially in conflict with each other, which is part of why FIRE got started and grew so much.

> I'm not asking you to anticipate my thinking, I'm asking you to catch up and engage with the questions I've already engaged with (some of which I asked upthread!)

The questions you asked were already answered before you asked them. You did not absorb the discussion above before you started asking questions, and are now asking to be spoon fed answers. Take some time to read the other comments above in this chain, check out the sources, listen to FIRE speakers on why current jurisprudence is where it is. Nobody is saying "trust us", they're saying, "this is what I think, and here are the sources that inform my thinking. You can check them out and decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree."

You've ignored all of this and insist that someone must tell you why they are right. Nobody can decide for you what's right. Opinions are subjective. Make up your own mind, nobody can do it for you.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#396

Post by rayiner »

jmull wrote: post #391
rayiner wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that twitter and other social media companies are just neutral platforms doesn't make any sense. Moderation and promotion of messages based on the content of the message has always been central to their business. The issue isn’t neutrality, but rather expression. The First Amendment protect’s a person’s expression. It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of th…

> It protects articles in the New York Times because those articles carry the imprimatur of the Times. If that were true it would create a loophole so big that the first amendment would practically not exist. The President could require the New York Times to carry a daily editorial on the front page from the desk of the president, with just with an additional caveat "This editorial does not reflect the opinions of th…

> If that were true it would create a loophole so big that the first amendment would practically not exist. The President could require the New York Times to carry a daily editorial on the front page from the desk of the president, with just with an additional caveat "This editorial does not reflect the opinions of the NYT". The President could require TV stations to broadcast speeches from the president speaking in the Rose Garden.

If the government is, in effect, simply hijacking a private communications medium to carry a message that's clearly from a different speaker, that's permissible. In TBS v. FCC, the Supreme Court held that cable companies can be forced to carry local channels: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/180/#tab-opi.... It found the burden on "cable providers editorial discretion in creating programming packages" to be insufficient to raise a first amendment problem.

Under the reasoning of TBS, Twitter has even less of a basis for claiming first amendment protection. Cable companies exercise "editorial discretion" in curating channels to fit into a limited number of available slots. Twitter doesn't need to do that and doesn't purport to do that.

> You're just pointing out that the free speech guarantees of the first amendment aren't absolute, which isn't in dispute as far as I know.

Not just that, but the guarantees are greater or less depending on the type of speech. The protection is very low for commercial speech that isn't purporting to carry any sort of message.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#397

Post by freejazz »

jchw wrote: post #390
freejazz wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely subversive, as it's subverting communications norms by being rude in the first place.

I mean in a different sense, in the sense that it is insincere. That's the problem with trolling right there. If you're sincere, it's obviously not trolling. Argueing that something is trolling because it solicits a reaction, or that because it's disruptive it counts as trolling, doesn't make sense. You can't distinguish trolling without knowing someone's motivations. Posts that could be trolling could just as easily…

It's not insincere. Perhaps you mean unkind?

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#398

Post by freejazz »

jchw wrote: post #389
freejazz wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That all having been said... SPAM and harassment are not problems because of the expression itself, they're problems because of the disruptive patterns of behavior. The point is not that you can't say something, or have a given opinion, or etc." Okay, but to ban speech on this is once again to pass judgment on its value to the contribution of the discourse or whatever avenue for communication is at issue. That's why…

What counts as "obscene" sure feels arbitrary, but fine. Subjective. > Okay, but to ban speech on this is once again to pass judgment on its value to the contribution of the discourse or whatever avenue for communication is at issue. That's why the absolutist position is ridiculous. It isn't navigable from any perspective save for the very perspective they are already criticizing. The key point that I've been failing…

How is obscenity arbitrary? What's considered obscene is related to what's considered not acceptable in society... you are acting like people arbitrarily decided that ducks are obscene...

>The key point that I've been failing to convey effectively is very simple: with SPAM, the expression itself is not the problem. If you post it 10,000 times responding to unrelated people, that is a problem.

You have conveyed that but it is not a useful metric by which to filter things from an absolutist standpoint because you have to make a value-judgment on the worth of the speech in regards to the venue... exactly what I said before.

>This generally follows: if you DM someone to yell racial slurs at them, you are harassing them. It's not about the platform banning naughty words, it's about banning disruptive conduct. The conduct is about the behavior, not the ideas or expressions expressed in them.

It's not that its disruptive... its that its harassment which is already a civil action and likely criminal in your jurisdiction as well. If you are gonna talk about how arbitrary laws are... maybe know a law or two?

>The "absolutist" position is basically never actually "absolutist". I initially thought people were interpreting it literally as a joke or something, but it seems like it has been taken pretty seriously. Yet, there are exceedingly few people who think that unprotected speech like CSAM should just be allowed. They DO exist, but I have a feeling the speech absolutists you are referring to do not. Doesn't that already make this discussion moot?

I'm not Elon Musk saying Im buying Twitter in order to support free speech... so don't look at me! I don't have problems with content moderation because I'm not naive.

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#399

Post by arwhatever »

_glsb wrote: post #284
Thorentis wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not advocating for NSDAP, but do you think it's worrying that one government would seek to make illegal, speech which could make people interested in a different government? That doesn't seem democratic to me.

You're talking about the Paradox of tolerance. I don't see why it is necessary to provide a democratic platform to undemocratic or misanthropic ideologies. I think it's misguided purism.

That’s all fine as long as I get to decide what is considered I democratic or misanthropic. :-)

Re: The distinction between free speech as a legal right and cultural value

#400

Post by valeness »

naasking wrote: post #380
valeness wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we experience the same reality. You're just a white supremacist apologist, at best, and an actual white supremacist at worst. Tucker Carlson thinks that immigration is ending the white race. That's a direct quote, go watch the segment.

You seem like a positively delightful person. Thanks for forcing me to watch my first Tucker Carlson segment since this keeps coming up [1]. I didn't hear this "direct quote" of yours anywhere. Tucker doesn't mention the "white race" at all, he speaks about government policies and how they influence native population growth (Americans born to Americans), and about the rate of immigration. If I missed your direct quot…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Here's a short one minute blurb, should be digestable enough for you.

"Legacy Americans" "The Great Replacement"

These are not dog whistles. They're not subtle. He's just being racist.

> You seem like a positively delightful person.

At least I'm not a racist xenophobe.

Post reply on HN