Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

Free speech doesn't mean someone has to host your speech.

If someone has 99% of the market and there is no publicly available (i.e. to anyone) competing service, it effectively turns into free speech limitation (not legally, just effectively).

When you say market in this hypothetical, what are you referring to? Video? Cable? Newspaper? Radio? Internet? Print? All of the above?

Movie Theaters effectively have their markets cornered, should they be forced to host your speech even if they don't want to?

I'm not sure what you mean by market.

Let's say people watched 99% of video on youtube. I guess that's inconvenient if you can't do your thing on youtube, but that's not a lack of free speech, it is a lack of attention.

Free speech doesn't guarantee that if I go shout on a street corner I'll get as much attention as youtube or any other street corner. It has always been that way.

Of course it does, somebody whether it is a nation or a website or a piece of paper has to host your speech. Otherwise it will just be thoughts inside your brain.

No, it doesn't. You are not entitled to a platform. You are entitled to safety from the government when you say objectionable things (under most conditions).

A newspaper doesn't have to publish your op-ed. YouTube doesn't have to host your video. You can make a website for free to get your point across without going through Youtube, so they're not silencing you either. Not in a free speech sense.

Nonsense, you're entirely free to express the speech in your head however you deem fit.

You're just not entitled to forcing others to express your speech for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com