Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrebbel | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places. As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech. People like the Westboro Baptist Church would've certainly been blocked from protesting here in the Netherlands.

At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West. This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".

I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow. Are Facebook, Google and Twitter, once self-titled champions of free information flow, going to be the forces that end America's freedom of expression (in practice at least)?

View on HN

> As a European, I've always wondered (with a certain hint of jealousy, I might add) at the USA's absolute freedom of speech.

The USA does not have absolute freedom of speech, it recognizes free speech as a fundamental right which means speech restrictions are evaluated under the “strict scrutiny” test.

> At the same time, it's now companies that are very American, both by origin and by culture, that are (letting themselves be pressured into) censuring speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West.

First, this is factually inaccurate: private parties throughout the West have controlled what speech they will choose to repeat, convey, relay, and associate themselves with under standards much more restrictive than those being applied by the controversial platforms today, which are controversial precisely because of how much extreme speech they choose to relay on their platform.

But, second, there is no paradox between the US’s strong notion of free speech and US private entities being selective about speech they will participate in: the strong free speech protection in the US has always included protecting the right of private actors to choose what speech they will participate in, not merely as a legal principle but as an essential theoretical underpinning of the right.

I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech includes ideas I vehemently disagree with (even hate speech). However, when speech incites physical violence and can be viewed as a legitimate threat, then it needs to be shut down.

Parents of children who were lost during Sandy Hook received physical threats and death threats because of Jones' comments. That's the line where free speech should be censored.

so then those people should be banned. A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they called for those actions to be taken.

So for example "tweeted a link to a video calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media"?

I'd have to see the video myself - I'll probably look it up later in order to have an informed opinion. Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices.

> Because it could be meant in many ways, and my suspicion is that it was intended in a metaphorical way rather than literally calling for his followers to shoot up some offices

Welcome to the world of "plausible deniability". Deliberately speaking in a way that lets you defend yourself "oh I was only meaning metaphorically!" or "I was just joking!", where you intend a subset of your listeners to understand that you are speaking literally, is a common tactic. It's somewhat akin to the Motte and Bailey defense: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/social-justice-and-word...

Its not even a "plausible deniability." Anyone who listens to Jones knows he speaks over over the top and is hyperbolic. Yes "Battle rifles" can be taken as literally, however in the article they state against the media without quoting the full video/statement. It's hard to take it literally that people will get their battle rifles and attack the media (an object). The media isn't a person so its is reaching.

what isn't provided in the article is the actual video that provides context. He is making the statement 'we' are under attack. The Battle rifle is being used in the context of defending yourself from these attacks.

Media Matters posted a clip of the video in question. https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808

In my opinion they are reaching here even in their own clip taken from Alex's periscope video. I see it as him saying 'we' need to be ready. Earlier in the clip he says the time is now to act but says economically, judiciously legally and criminally. I assume given the others he mentioned criminally meaning press charges on those who attack.

I defiantly urge people to seek out the actual video or at the very least the clip above before instantly going to the 'He deserves to be banned.

I hate that I have to say this but I'm not a fan of Alex Jones. I feel like I as well as many others have to say that (not just for this topic) otherwise its looked at as we're just followers and will defend him no matter what.

> The media isn't a person so its is reaching.

The media is made up of people.

I agree that it is and I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples. I'm sure there are more examples makes up media but these are just some I can think of. These things of course are created by people but there is a difference between attacking the people and attacking a platform/object or ideas. I can't speak for him (nor would I want to), but I think that is the question of what he means. It looks like Twitter decided it was inciting violence toward people and/or violated their rules and suspended him.

> I'm not arguing it isn't made up of people. It isn't the only thing it is made up of though. Its also made up of news coverage, editorial, opinions, bias, and agendas/direction as some examples.

Sure, but those are things that can't be attacked with guns. So when Jones talks about attacking them with guns, it's natural to understand it as attacking those parts which can be attacked with guns—the people, and the buildings (which contain people). And those parts have been attacked by guns recently.

Correct, they can't be attacked with literal guns, which means it could be a figure of speech. Could being the keyword since he is the only one who could settle that debate.

Lets assume it wasn't a figure of speech. I'm with you in that I don't condone if he calling for physical attacks on people be it with a gun or some other physical means. I don't condone or agree with that in general regardless of what side its on.

From the article: "calling for supporters to get their “battle rifles” ready against media and others,"

battle rifle is in part taken out of context of what he said in the video and is editorialized to an extent to paint it in a way that could be construed as him calling to attack.

Taken out of the video with a little more context: "Because they're coming...This is it... So people need to have battle rifles ready at their bedsides..." https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1029477795561463808

I didn't put everything in that quote, but linked the video where I listen to it from so you can hear it in whole. If you take it in those terms he isn't calling for attacks or acts of violence, but is saying they are coming for you and you need to be ready to defend yourself. You can argue that defending yourself could become violent, but I see defense a little different then the aggressor.

By the way appreciate the discussion we having.

that's a huge presumption on your part. What you're essentially saying is that you know what the internal motivation of Alex Jones is, and that his metaphor is definitely what he actually believes. I don't think even he knows what his internal motivation is, and to suggest that you know he's secretly harbouring these murderous thoughts is ridiculous.

plausible deniability is clear in cases where someone makes an actual argument for something then pulls the "haha I was only trolling" argument, but to say for example to be ready for battle, in the context of politics, should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes. People use references to war, battle, fighting and so on all the time in the context of political conflict.

> should not be immediately taken as a call to start tying the lynching ropes

Is that what happened? I guess I'm behind on the news; I had heard his twitter account got suspended, I didn't realize he was lynched!

Or is that just hyperbole? Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole in this situation, instead of discussing what actually happened?

I find interesting the transformations you use in your language—"get your battle rifles ready" becomes "be prepared", but "twitter account suspended for a week" becomes "tying the lynching ropes".

[this was edited, btw, since you responded while I was editing it]

That's just my poor writing skills - I meant that someone calling for political battle may not actually be inciting lynching or shooting the media or whatever, but speaking in metaphor.

>>A public individual cannot be held responsible for the actions of their followers

Which is why politics is such a dangerous minefield to traverse. Sure you are never going to have absolute of anything, but certain ideologies are inherently violent in nature. And sooner or later some lunatic will do bad things in your name.

Free speech only means you are allowed to say things, it doesn't mean you get immunity from the consequences of your speech.

When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all. In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats. Alex Jones has indulged in conspiracy theories, but as far as I know he has not called for violence or anyone's death. If we apply your rule, then how do we deal with the many death threats against President Trump by ordinary people and even celebrities. Are we to ban their preferred newspapers, TV and YouTube channels too? After all, where could they have got such an idea? If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.

>In your case it seems you are willing to curtail a broadcaster's speech because of your arbitrary rule that some of that person's followers may have threatened violence or sent death threats.

To be fair, that's not an "arbitrary rule" that kylesellas just made up. Censorship of speech which threatens or advocates violence is commonly accepted as a limitation to free speech necessary for maintaining civil society, and the premise is codified in law throughout the world.

>If your standard was applied consistently then then there would be no media.

The fact that the standard exists and that media also exists would imply that your definition of 'consistent application' isn't relevant.

There is no legal standard by which a broadcaster who doesn't incite violence can be held accountable by their followers who commit or threaten violence.

Brandenburg v. Ohio and Dennis v. United States provide a pretty clear legal standard for this:

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

Twitter, of course, is not the State and can do what they want.

But if the State censored or in someway punished Jones, they would have to demonstrate that his speech constituted "inciting" "imminent" "lawless action." And there have been several cases since which have focused mostly on the "imminent" part.

When people say "I'm all for freedom of speech, but..." it means they aren't actually for freedom of speech at all.

Absolutism is poison.

100%

Tell that to the Founding Fathers.

You mean, in many cases, the people that wrote the Alien and Sedition Acts?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they weren't free speech absolutists.

And yet we still have the First Amendment.

The ones who said "All Men Are Created Equal", but really just meant landowning white males? And who explicitly defined the worth of a slave to be 3/5 of a non-slave?

You are mistating the 3/5 compromise, which does not define the worth of a slave as 3/5 of a non-slave. Your version makes it sound as if it would be better if dishes were fully counted for apportionment, when that would be worse.

The compromise gives additional representation to the free citizens of a slave state equal based on 3/5 of the number of slaves, but if voting power is worth, then it is saying that worth of those who enslave is enhanced by the number enslaved. The slaves themselves, though, are not recognized having any worth.

The only sense in which the 3/5 compromise makes a slave worth 3/5 of a non-slave is that it makes the marginal increase in voting power a free citizen derived from an additional slave in the state 3/5 of what they receive from a disenfranchised non-slave. (IOW, Jim Crow and it's modern successors are 67% more politically effective for the disenfranchisers per disenfranchised person than actual slavery under the 3/5 compromise.)

> companies ... censuring [censoring?] speech more than has ever been seen in the modern West

More than the Hays Code or HUAC?

And those are just in America; I'm old enough to remember when certain UK elected members of Parliament were legally banned from speaking on television, resulting in the weird "words read by an actor" workaround.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...

Clearchannel, which controlled most FM channels, infamously stopped playing John Lennon's "Imagine" after Sep 11 2001. So this is not new. In the absence of popular govt. media and channels, this does form de facto censorship in the US.

The usual explanation I have heard is that free speech is limited to tge govt. not able to arrest you for criticising it. It does not apply to private parties.

I think de facto censorship by private monopolies must also be illegal for true freedom of speech.

> Clearchannel, which controlled most FM channels, infamously stopped playing John Lennon's "Imagine" after Sep 11 2001

This snopes article provides some background about what happened there:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radio-radio/

So songs weren't banned, they were deemed inappropriate to play.

Another example of Snopes proudly declaring FALSE when PARTIALLY TRUE would be more appropriate.

Ah the modern Web, where even the 'fact-checkers' play the spin game.

"Radio personnel were still free to make their own programming decisions, and the list was merely intended as helpful advisory information."

How does that make a "ban" partially true?

But the absolute freedom of speech is just from prosecution of the government (correct me if I am wrong). private parties can always deny you their platform to be used for hatemongering or anything else really.

Agreed. I think this is an important distinction that seems to get lost in some of the conversation. There is a fundamental distinction to be had between the government forbidding you from speech versus a private individual or corporation from excluding you from their platform.

Freedom of speech is a principle about how to exercise power.

The first amendment is scoped to the government because the constitution is scoped to the government.

> The first amendment is scoped to the government because the constitution is scoped to the government.

Yes and no. It's true that he Constitution is scoped to government, so if there was a free speech principle that was not it might have been limited in the Constitution.

But the free speech principle actually underlying the Constitutional text is also scoped to government in that involves and relies on the freedom of all actors except government to choose what speech to make, endorse, support, relay, or associate themselves with to promote the competition of ideas and the success of good ones and elimination of bad ones, on the concept that the former will be more likely to be relayed and the latter will die out from failure to convince people to participate in spreading them.

If platforms of overwhelming reach and intrusiveness actively relay content blindly, it makes it much harder for the winnowing process to work.

Because it is American companies operating these big social media sites? Believe it or not, companies react to outcries by consumers, and they calculate that it will be better to suspend some users than not to.

Had it been European companies operating big social media sites, you'd seen the same thing happen. Companies are companies, and they aim for profit less so principles. And more and more Americans view websites' hosting of controversial content as implicitly condoning that content.

Besides, the First Amendment only prevent governments from limiting speech, not companies.

> coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".

I've always found that to be a trite self-aggrandising phrase (especially in its "to the death" variant). How many of the people who have repeated that, actually stick by it long term? Gotta be microscopic.

Especially given that said phrase was written by a Frenchman and popularized by an Englishwoman.

This seems to be a common misconception outside of the United States. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private entities.

> I'm curious about how this is happening in America, of all places.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that any private entity has to facilitate it. In the US it means that the government can't instate laws that limit free speech, for what may be a broader definition of what is considered legitimate expressions thereof than you'd find in a typical European country applying the same principles.

> This strikes me as an odd paradox, coming from a country where people get taught from primary school onward to "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it".

Let's say that you throw a party. You invite friends and acquaintances to use your property. After a few hours, everyone is drunk and someone you don't really know well starts shouting racial slurs. You feel uncomfortable about it. Your guests feel uncomfortable about it. Would you fight for his right to use your property as a platform for his ramblings? He's ruining the party and your own reputation as a host is at stake. Your moral standards are being questioned. You would not be limiting his right to say anything by throwing him out. If nothing else he can go home and shout at a mirror.

That's the kind of situation you have with Facebook/Twitter/Google. They invite people to use their property, on their terms. If they don't like you, they'll kick you out. Even if they don't care, they might kick you out to save face. It's not paradoxical; it's very much in line with American culture: everyone should have the right to choose how to represent themselves and how to use their property. Get off my land! Trespassers will be shot!

> I wonder where all this is going to lead, especially since these few companies control so much of global information flow.

Here I think you pinpoint the problem exactly. This problem doesn't only concern censorship but how these companies treat and disseminate information overall. If public debate is largely controlled by private, poorly unregulated organizations, democracy takes a hit. Maybe tighter regulation of entities that deal with so much communication is called for. I think GDPR is a step in the right direction. Destroy the economic incentives to facilitate so much communication.

It will be interesting when he gets banned from AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, etc in solidarity. We already know AirBnB will discriminate against you if you harbor hate speech views even if they weren’t expressed on their platform.

The refusal to promote the voices of others is as much a part of free speech. Facebook is not the town square just because people used it that way.

Most users are outside of the US for these companies.

Freedom of expression isn't at stake here. Your right to free speech - even the "disagree with what you say but fight for your right to say it" kind - doesn't entitle you to get broadcast or listened to.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Sure, within a few days he was banned from Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and LinkedIn - which covers almost all Internet traffic.

It was just 4 companies that banned him, not the government. He can just go to the alternate versions of those platforms...

How is this germane? He's also not on all the major television networks, radio networks, or newspapers. Why are you deeming the Internet special?

Alex Jones made his name originally driving around Austin with a sound truck.

You're not guaranteed an audience, full stop.

Freedom of speech does not apply to privately controlled products from private companies. Any one of these companies could create any arbitrary rule to regulate their platform and it's not a violation of free speech. The thought is that they operate in a capitalist system where they are optimizing for profits which means they need the most amount of customers so they are trying to accommodate everyone.

The same way all of these companies actively block spam on their platforms to improve user experiences. This is probably a result of analytics in inside Twitter where they realize that it's costing them subscribers and revenue.

Freedom of speech is about censorship from the government. As much as Silicon Valley companies love to self aggrandize they are not the government and are under no obligation to allow their platforms to be used for furthering hate speech (or anything else.)

In fact I firmly believe sites like Reddit, Twitter and Facebook allowing racism and other horrible crap on their sites in the mid 2000s until recently is what helped make it more mainstream. In the web of the 1990s these idiots would have had to go to their own sites that nobody else goes to. Mainstream sites like Slashdot or whatnot didn’t tolerate it. For some reason after the dot com crash the new round of sites afterward have had some kind of delusion that they need to uphold free speech. And it’s nonsense.

What does this have to do with "America"? It's a private company enforcing its own rules on its own platform.

I must say I have not been jealous of the US in this regard. In my opinion the state should be able to silence fascists and neo-nazis and jail them for hate speech. Unlike the US, people in Europe have experienced first hand what happens when you tolerate and enable them.

Also I don't think you can call it "absolute freedom of speech" as some speech, like calls for murder of the usual fire in a theatre exemple, are indeed not allowed. The US also has libel laws & copyright laws. To me the main difference with European style freedom of speech seems to be tolerance of extremist political/religious speech.

(Eastern) Europe has also experienced what happens when communists are in charge, yet communists are not being persecuted in any way, while fascists or nazis are. Something else is going on. Case in point: this comment is being downvoted without any explanation.

> this comment is being downvoted without any explanation

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

I am not complaining about it, but I think it's relevant to the point: oppression of certain opinions. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Hate speech is a slippery slope, it's ill defined and you grant an awful lot of power to the people who get to 'define' the term.

A critique of islam could be considered 'hate speech'.

On the other hand I do agree that calls for violence/murder should indeed be punishable and are also far better defined to be taken up as law.

Isn't that the point though? Europe has experienced first hand not only "national socialism" (nazism), but also another type of socialism — communism. Still legal though, and going strong in Europe.

It's a grim comparison, but communism has actually produced a higher body count that nazism and fascism combined.

That US had traditionally granted free speech to all kinds of extremists, no matter the -ism, was truly remarkable and unique. Definitely a cause for wonder (even jealousy like OP says).

And the way they found to circumvent that pesky constitutional constraint by having mega-corp-in-bed-with-gvt monopolies do the dirty work, without breaking the letter of the law, is remarkable again. An elegant "hack".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com