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

141–150 of 428 posts

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

#141

Post by xyzzyz »

rayiner wrote: post #135
mech765 wrote: post #5

Freedom of association captures the idea of freedom of speech better than freedom of speech itself, I think. Private parties are (with some number of government constraints) free to pick who to work with, who to play with, and who to talk with, and who they don't want to do anything with.

It’s weird to repeatedly see the argument that a corporation’s moderation of human individual’s speech is itself a form of protected speech, from a group of people who until recently mostly thought corporate speech wasn’t even broad enough to cover a corporation’s production and distribution of its own message in a political movie. Like I think “corporations are people too, my friend” but corporate moderation as a fo…

When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

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

#142

Post by whateveracct »

esparrohack wrote: post #109
whateveracct wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen it. It's a child with one of their stuffed animal purses in BDSM gear. And there's some wine in a shot. And there's text for a SCOTUS ruling that child pornography is not protected speech. I'm honestly not seeing what's so grotesque about it all? Feels tame as far as fashion stuff goes. Wouldn't bat an eye in the '90s.

I think it's really creepy that you don't see anything wrong with a child in BDSM gear. And alcohol. That's actually sadism. I dunno, maybe you just don't get it. Do you know what sadism is? On the other hand, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it shouldn't bother me other than "oh just get over it it's not that bad", which isn't working with me, since I have no petty bourgeois sensibilities, and I know…

The child was next to some glasses of wine. Why does that make you clutch pearls exactly?

Have you seen Big Daddy? The Adam Sandler film? Is that also on this level? Feels like the same thing. Child actors in an adult piece of media with sexual and violent and otherwise adult themes.

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

#143

Post by whateveracct »

axlee wrote: post #103
User23 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For added weirdness “ba len ci aga” is Latin for “do what you want.” See for yourself with Google translate. It could also be translated as the more familiar “do what thou wilt,” a rather infamous occult credo.

The company was founded more than a century ago by a spanish prodigy named Cristobal Balenciaga...stop with the conspirationist nonsense. Not here.

Sadly it is commonplace here (HN). You can find comments on HM spouting Tucker Carlson and co's outrage on a daily basis. I do not envy dang's job.

Moderating dog whistles at-scale is an unsolved problem. Quick, Paul Graham, seize the opportunity to change the world!!

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

#144

Post by thomasmiller_ »

I'm curious why these discussions sidestep the fact that a company has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. It is understandable, from a shareholder perspective, to not want your investment's brand next to potentially unsavory content. It seems that there is a real and unresolved tension between a culture of free speech (which I wholeheartedly endorse) and modern-day capitalism.

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

#145

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #129
autoexec wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All online platforms need to have moderators to prevent things like spam and illegal content. That doesn't mean that they can't also uphold the idea of free speech principles though. Musk really went crazy with cutting staff, but I'm not sure if it was because he wrongly thought he needed to cut the moderation teams in order to support free speech or if he just did it because moderation is expensive.

It's fair to assume he cut moderation teams because they were intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests. Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.

Why do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.

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

#146

Post by sokoloff »

giantrobot wrote: post #115
sokoloff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political speech, especially unpopular political speech, is among the speech that I think is most deserving of free speech protections. I specifically want the political speech of the people most ideologically opposed to my point of view to be able to make their speech, free from government intrusion on it. I will almost surely not like it, but I will defend vigorously their right to say it.

> I specifically want the political speech of the people most ideologically opposed to my point of view to be able to make their speech, free from government intrusion on it. Neat. But I'm under no obligation to carry that shit in my blog's comment section, social media platform, or any other service. If you want to stand up some service you're under no obligation to carry my speech that you don't agree with either.

I completely agree.

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

#147

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

thomasmiller_ wrote: post #144

I'm curious why these discussions sidestep the fact that a company has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. It is understandable, from a shareholder perspective, to not want your investment's brand next to potentially unsavory content. It seems that there is a real and unresolved tension between a culture of free speech (which I wholeheartedly endorse) and modern-day capitalism.

Companies don’t have a duty to maximize shareholder value.

See here, for one discussion: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

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

#148

Post by nickthegreek »

zmgsabst wrote: post #30
ceejayoz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t Twitter, one of your “private parties”, also get to pick “who they don't want to do anything with”?

We view certain companies that provide essential services as “common carriers” — who aren’t allowed to discriminate based on how you use their product. Common carrier status for essential services is one of the ways we protect freedoms in the US. Examples: power company, phone company, ISP. People are starting to view Twitter et al as similar to phone companies — and hence think they should be bound by common carrier…

I don’t believe ISP’s are common carriers. And they should be way before Twitter would ever get that designation.

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

#149

Post by snowwrestler »

If you are reading a piece about free speech and content moderation on platforms like Twitter, look to see if it meaningfully engages with the concepts of spam and porn, which are both fully legal speech, and both heavily moderated with little controversy. (This piece does not.)

Why does this matter? Because free speech, free expression in general, is a means to express values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs are integral to the way we each evaluate the content decisions of private parties like social platforms, publishers, and people.

No one values spam, so no one writes hand-wringing essays about whether it is ok to kick spam and spammers off social media. Most people recognize that porn, even if they like it, is not something that should be in everyone’s faces all the time, so there is little existential concern for free speech as a whole when porn is excluded or hidden from some contexts.

You cannot expect to make sense of free speech if you try to ignore other values.

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

#150

Post by thomasmiller_ »

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #147
thomasmiller_ wrote: post #144

I'm curious why these discussions sidestep the fact that a company has a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. It is understandable, from a shareholder perspective, to not want your investment's brand next to potentially unsavory content. It seems that there is a real and unresolved tension between a culture of free speech (which I wholeheartedly endorse) and modern-day capitalism.

Companies don’t have a duty to maximize shareholder value. See here, for one discussion: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

From the same discussion: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Post reply on HN