Hacker News Reader

Comment by ViViDboarder | Hacker News Reader

Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech?

If a company has an obligation to promote something against their will, violating their own right to free speech, how could a company like Hobby Lobby get away with an exemption on the same grounds?

I don’t see this getting past federal courts, even with a heavily conservative judiciary. The fallout would be far too great.

View on HN

There was a supreme court case a while ago that enshrined freedom of speech rights for companies, I get the sense that many of the same people that complained about that then, are now advocating for the rights of companies.

As an aside, in canada, the first case overturning a law for being unconstitutional for violating free speech was kind of that situation, where the alberta government wanted newspapers to have to publish official "rebuttals" to previous articles, against their will. This was before canada had free speech in the constitution, but violating free speech was considered insufficiently "british", and laws had to be in the spirit of britian.

Obviously none of that is relavent to the USA, but kind of seems similar

>Isn’t a company closing to to promote content for someone else their own right to free speech?

Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO

"Patreon is and should remain free to disassociate itself from whomever it wants. Like all companies that have guidelines and content‐ moderation policies, Patreon is open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistently applying its speech standards. Anyone looking for a company that has been entirely consistent with its own content guidelines will be persistently disappointed.[...]

Classical liberals and other supporters of free association and free speech should indeed be concerned when the government undertakes initiatives such as the Department of Justice’s Operation Choke Point, which investigated banks doing business with firearms dealers (among others). But there is a world of difference between a government cracking down on peaceful citizens’ legal behaviour and a private company choosing to sever a business relationship.[...]

But it’s a mistake to portray the ongoing debate about content moderation as one in which supporters of a ‘closed’ and a ‘free’ internet fight it out for supremacy. You’re not less free if a private company won’t host your speech, and an internet where those companies discriminate is not ‘closed’. Those who want a maximally tolerant venue for speech on the internet are welcome to build one. "

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patreon-not-wag...

> Yes, take it from the conservative folks at CATO

CATO is right-libertarian, but more libertarian than right. Describing them simply as simply “conservative” in this context is a bit misleading.

This is a publisher vs platform issue.

Platforms were given a free pass, provided they act in "good faith".

Publishers weren't given a free pass.

Hobby Lobby's case was not related to platform vs publisher issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com