Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmc | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach have a curious exemption for property rights. They claim the right of Facebook/Twitter/reddit/etc. as privacy companies to control their property (i.e. their websites) apparently trump right to free speech. An earlier free speech article also from the Economist, which is linked from the sidebar[1], claims that private companies should be exempted from free speech rules, and should be allowed to publish, or not publish, anything they want.

Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-sp...

View on HN

>It's interesting that many who advocate a "free speech über alles" approach have a curious exemption for property rights

You find this to be a curious exemption? I think the term "freedom of speech" generally means the freedom to let your ideas be known without fearing official (i.e. government) reprisal or suppression.

I don't think "freedom of speech" has ever been generally understood to mean that companies/venues/clubs/etc cannot regulate communication according to their own rules, or have an editorial policy where they choose what gets published and what doesn't.

The right of Facebook to set their own rules on their "property" (websites) absolutely trumps your desire to force them to air your views, both morally and legally. This has no effect on your freedom of speech (as that term is traditionally applied) -- because Facebook has no monopoly on speech venues.

>Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?

Yes, because "declining to provide you with a free unlimited platform for speech" is not the same thing as "denying freedom of speech".

I don't think this is a particularly controversial view.

I don't think this is controversial at all. If someone decides to spraypaint a racial slur on my car, am I denying them free speech by cleaning it off? Anyone is free to make their own Diaspora or GNU Social, but the idea that any kind of editing of user submissions to your website is unethical suppression of free speech could have some really bad consequences.

And yet, this article often refers to Google possibly taking down search results.

The article also talks about individual people committing murder, something that's already a crime, rarely about state actions. If a lone murderer & criminal counts as a "threat to free speech", why not talk about who owns the space?

Google is supposed to accurately represent the internet. And sometimes monopolies lose rights that other companies have. Facebook you could perhaps argue. Twitter and reddit are not that big.

When murders are part of a political campaign, they stop being 'lone'.

Google taking down search results is mentioned because it is an act forced by governments. Twitter and Facebook choosing to take down content they don't like is different in character because it is not.

It's important to distinguish between rights and values. Yes, they have a right to restrict speech on their platform. If they value free speech, they shouldn't. The legal guarantee of free speech is just one expression of a more general value.

Freedom of the press also should protect you from compelled speech from other parties. Nobody should force you to publish an article under your byline in a newspaper you own and distribute, nor do you have to publish every letter to the editor you receive. Facebook and Twitter should be allowed the same rights. Their ball, their rules.

Now, for shared resources owned or partially owned by the government, like airwaves or arguably the Internet (specifically the interconnection of the network), there is a public interest in sharing those resources across all points of view.

Its still debatable whether Facebook and Twitter are "publishers" or just some utility companies. Should your ISP be allowed to censor what you post? Most of us would think, no. Its a blurry line.

The ISP and the phone line (in the U.S. and most countries) use infrastructure subsidized by the government, so should have to follow regulations.

Your local highway/bridge might be owned by a private company, but they require connections to the local roads, owned by the government, and so is expected to be a 'utility'. Fedex might use public roads, but nobody would expect them to be forced to become a 'common carrier', or some such. They can 'censor' whatever packages they want.

If you don't like Facebook's censorship policies, don't use Facebook.

I suppose an argument could be made that due to its size, Facebook is sort of like a "utility" and has a duty to provide "service" to everybody regardless of its opinions about their use of the service. But unlike the electric company, which is the only place you can buy electricity, Facebook is not a monopoly: There are plenty of other websites where you can publish your speech (or you can even get your own domain and VPS and host your own site very cheaply).

> If you don't like Facebook's censorship policies, don't use Facebook.

Why? Don't I have a right to free speech (on Facebook)?

Should it be moral for the government to set up small, limited, "free speech zones" far away from everywhere and say "If you want free speech, go here?". (Yes I know that has sorta happened in USA) What about requiring that all bookshops/newspaper sellers in a certain area only sell books/newspapers that don't mention $TOPIC. You're quite free to go to a bookshop 100km away which will sell you anything. Is that not a restriction on free speech?

> Why? Don't I have a right to free speech (on Facebook)?

No. What makes you think you do?

No, you don't have a right to free speech on Facebook. No, the government can't ban bookshops from selling books about $Topic. One of these would be the government suppressing free speech (the bookstore's free speech, not their customers'), the other does not involve the government at all.

> Why? Don't I have a right to free speech (on Facebook)?

Absolutely not. Your right of free speech applies only to freedom from government censorship and that's it. Facebook can do whatever they want on their website, you have no rights at all on their website. Please go read the first amendment.

That same first amendment also contains the ostensible provision for businesses to bar African Americans via freedom of association. But as country we (rightly) decided that that's bullshit and enacted laws to stop that practice. It's not inherently unreasonable for someone to suggest that we need to similarly rein in platforms acting against the intellectual discourse values this country was founded upon.

I'm not sure I agree that it does, it used to be interpreted that way but what really changed was the courts interpretation of equal treatment under the law as well as the incorporation of the first 10 amendments which allowed it to say no the first amendment doesn't allow states to discriminate because those amendments apply to the states as well. We as a country didn't decide anything, the supreme court did all on its own.

Additionally I'll any attempt to demand private companies stop censoring their properties hurts free speech and is in fact a direct violation of it.

You're just confusing morals and laws. Facebook censorship might be immoral, but the only way to make it illegal would be to rescind Facebook's freedom of speech, by making them publish whatever the government wanted.

If the government were forcing Facebook to censor some topic, that would be immoral and illegal. All of your examples fall into this category.

> private companies should be exempted from free speech rules, and should be allowed to publish, or not publish, anything they want.

Yes, isn't this obvious? Freedom of speech protects you from government suppression, that's it. It doesn't mean anybody has to respect what you're saying, and it doesn't mean you get to force anyone to broadcast your message.

I don't understand why this is "curious." It's pretty common to have different views on what government should do versus what private individuals should do. For example, I don't think the government should endorse any religion, but I think it's fine for private individuals to do so.

A great discussion of this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...

Have you read EULAs these days? Everyone has technically "agreed" that these companies can take down anything they want to on their platform or suspend/delete an account just because they can.

> Should Facebook's property rights overrule my free speech rights?

Is choosing which material to publish not itself a form of speech? Should your right to free speech overrule Facebook's right to free speech?

Are you willing to host (and pay for) my assorted rantings, which I assure you would be offensive and detrimental to your business and interests?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com