Hacker News Reader

Comment by theclaw | Hacker News Reader

The phone company would be a better analogy, and they absolutely can cut off your service if you’re being a nuisance. The first ammendment says your government won’t pass laws against you saying stuff, it stops you from going to jail for the things you say, and it’s there to protect the people’s right to criticise the government.

It is not there to force companies to serve you if they don’t want to.

View on HN

Okay, so sticking with that analogy, can your phone company cut off your service if you're making racist comments or discussing unpopular political ideas with your friends over the phone? Or, perhaps more importantly, _should_ they be able to?

Please quit calling "exterminating the jews" an unpopular political opinion.

I think the term makes sense, because that's what it is, and that's the reason why people want to shut it down. It also brings into focus the main point of: where do you draw the line? When is a political opinion unpopular enough to warrant shutting it down?

The difference is incitement to violence.

But that's not really the difference, since there is plenty of incitement to violence that is politically palatable.

Phone conversations are private.

What makes them private? They're operated on the phone company's lines and by talking on their lines you're compelling them to carry certain speech. The logic that states private communication carriers have an unlimited right to ban what they want to on their networks leads to the conclusion that "private" phone calls can be censored.

> What makes them private?

The law. Wire-tapping isn't legal.

It isn't wire-tapping if they block you from accessing the wire to begin with. Forcing the phone companies to carry your speech over their wires is compelling speech across their property which should be against their 1A rights if you're correct. However, it clearly has been ruled not to violate their rights.

Yes it is.

I mean, there's a law against it. But there is a lot of known warrent-less wire-tapping, both by govt and industry, and everyone shrugs.

And it's not even a de jure vs de facto thing, since by now a lot of the ostensibly illegal stuff has been either defended successfully in courts or buttressed by the govt.

And what if they weren't?

Would you have a problem with a phone company listening into your conversations and determining if you said something bad or not?

If you broke the law by saying something, yes. Incitement to violence is not protected free speech.

That's not quite the definition. But suppose some piece of speech is not protected: that doesn't necessarily make it illegal, just that it is legal for the state to censor you.

This isn't about illegal speech.

This is about perfectly legal speech that does not fall under the definition of incitement.

We have the police for handling illegal incitement to violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com