Free speech so long as you agree with what they're saying.
And yes, free speech, so long as everyone in the room agrees that all of the humans in said room are human. Anything less than that, and they can get the hell out of the room, their ideas aren't worth discussing. If you don't agree with that, you are by definition a white supremacist.
And when did the first amendment stop protecting (some) dehumanizing speech? It definitely still protects dehumanizing progressive speech. How long before we have a list of types of speech no longer covered by free speech. How long until what I'm saying now is no longer covered?
If you want to grab a megaphone and spew white-supremacist garbage from your drive way then feel free, the government cannot, and should not, stop you. However, if your neighbors refuse to interact with you, that's your own fault. The megaphone seller also has the right not to sell you the megaphone if they don't want you to spew said garbage using their megaphone. Not once in that scenario does free speech apply.
This feels a little hand-wavy: in the past there have been "designated free speech zones" that are of course critized organizations like the ACLU as a form of censorship and denying free speech. I don't think it's too crazy to say that speech without a platform isn't speech at all. I'm not saying we should force sites to accept content they don't like but we are going to have to address the privatization of speech sooner rather than later.
However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years.
Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.
Did the banned individuals ever do this? I would be shocked of Stefan Molyneux has ever been recorded advocating violence against persons of color.
Or is he just collateral damage in the campaign to stop those inciting violence?
PayPal for example: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E...
By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we might consider applying to other contexts even where the first amendment isn’t legally required. That view is anathema to how the first amendment has long been understood. (There is a reason the ACLU has repeatedly defended the right of neo nazis to march. And it isn’t because they’re preoccupied with the technicalities of the law. After all, the government does a lot of other unconstitutional stuff that doesn’t merit the ACLU’s involvement.)
If you want to say there is a substantive difference between say Facebook and public streets, that’s fine that warrants differing treatment, that’s fine and I probably agree with you. But saying that the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations doesn’t prove anything more than it’s not literally illegal for Facebook and Twitter to do this. It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.
The principle of free speech behind the first amendment is that active choice in what message to spread by private parties produces a desirable marketplace of ideas analogous to a marketplace of goods, where ideas compete on their merits to convince people to devote resources to spreading them, and that this—which not only involves but relies centrally on editorial decisions by the people owning the tools of communications as to which ideas they want to spread—is critical to the progress of good and failure of bad ideas, and is inhibited when the state has their hand on the scales which is why the state must remain neutral so that private actors can act in this area.
The idea of free speech that motivates the first amendment supports free, active, and vigorous decisions as to what content to relay and not by private platform owners. That's the whole point.
There are other competing, incompatible.concepts of free speech besides the one motivating the first amendment, and some of them do have different things to say about private action, but if you want to appeal to the idea of free speech behind the first amendment, it is of no use to your argument here.
If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally.
Philosophically, I believe the First Amendment is properly addressed at restraining the power of the government, rather than at propping up unpopular ideas.
I don’t agree with your characterization that not shutting down subreddits or Twitter accounts is identical to forcing speech on anyone. There are a lot of Neo-marxists hanging out on Reddit calling for violence whose ideas I find extremely offensive and dangerous. But I choose not to wander into those subreddits. I don’t see why those subreddits need to be wiped out.
A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's show.
I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particular guy must sell this particular cake, when it comes to issues as critical to a functioning free and democratic society (such as speech). So "fair" abstractions (those which don't hide or ignore contradiction) aren't just important, but obligatory. This is an issue that can be reasoned to completion without introducing "protected classes" of human being, because the reasoning and conclusion are the same regardless (and for the same reason more concise mathematical proofs are preferred over those predicated on "complications" such as Riemann).
The guy selling the cake argued that he was being compelled to express an opinion (decorate a cake in celebration of an idea his religious beliefs dictated were unethical), thus making it compelled speech. So, is Youtube being compelled to express a particular opinion, if they do not ban users from the platform, when those users say things people find abhorrent? I do not think so, because Youtube bills itself as a platform where users create content and then publish the content on the platform for other users. Youtube does not purport to be a merchant of the content itself (obligatory reference to criticality of Section 230 protections). But according to his legal defense, the cake guy is selling the decoration of the cake in addition to the cake itself; his artwork as an expression of himself. In other words, Youtube is selling the medium and not the message. But the cake guy is selling the message (in addition to the medium). He is billing his cake decoration as part of his services, whereas Youtube and every other "platform" specifically denies in legal long-form that the content on their platform(s) reflect the views and opinions of the companies creating them. That is the critical distinction, and why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms.
Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them. I mention this here because I've found this is so divergent from the dominant worldview that it's rejected often with much of the same forcefulness as if I'd stated a value judgment predicated on the color of a person's skin. And this seems to me to be symptomatic, and I'm not sure how this fits into the broader discussion of how the internet fits into our culture. But it's a core proposition which I hope will be addressed directly instead of indirectly, because the implications are clear (you are ceding control of your mind to others, when you allow their words to dictate your thoughts).
Users don't have a right to free expression on others' platforms. The right to freedom on of speech only extends to one's own platforms of expression. If someone wants to post videos they can host their own video sharing website.
And then google comes and takes your domain away and refuses to give it back
Whoa there buddy. You can't just suggest that other people be responsible for their own emotional responses and learn to moderate them and move along. If people started doing that, then what nwxt? You'd start having people independently then! Furthermore, that would completely negate a degree or manner of social control capable of being leaned on.
Apologies for the tongue in cheek, but I have the feeling your words may fall on deaf ears. Even worse, they'll fall on malicious ones who would turn it against you for the gall or privilege you demonstrate by aiming you can just say anything to anyone else, and whether or not they get offended is their problem.
I think I'm starting to understand the mentality a bit better;and it isn't necessarily unhealthy if taken at reasonable degrees. On the one hand, there is some level of required empathy to one's audience in any exchange. On the other hand though, no one is entitled to never getting in a verbal sparring match, and it's not terribly graciously or respectable to just say "That is your problem."
You have to bring your full rhetorical toolkit to the table. You have to meet on levels of logos, pathos, and ethos all. Leave any one out, or conspicuously absent, and you're liable to get binned more often than convincing anyone.
But to your point as well, it's in our nature though to react poorly to this notion, because it contains some uncomfortable truths about the universe and our place in it. And the lizard brain, having been hit on the nose with an uncomfortable, worldview-challenging assertion, commands to us that surely some fault lies on some level with the person saying the evil words or whatever. But no: It is literally the case that it is entirely within your control how you react to some person coming up to you on the street and screaming "COCKSUCKER!" in your face. I really try not to qualify my statements too much (because not doing so is one easy and practical way to demonstrate how little courtesy we extend to people who say things we disagree with, and how much we force our own value judgments on the words we interpret), but notice I'm not saying that it's not a lot of work to get to that point. And indeed, I still struggle with this mightily every day. We are human, after all. But we are the sole accountable party for our own thoughts.
To further support my assertion, imagine how your emotional, reactionary lizard brain would interpret the Cocksucker Guy if he was clearly a crazy person who lived on the street. Now imagine your interpretation of the same except that it's your significant other's best friend. Or significant other. Maybe you can see where this is going. Now imagine your interpretation of the exact same two scenarios, except instead of "cocksucker" they are screaming "asshole". You've just demonstrated in this simple thought experiment that your reaction is completely and wholly dependent on factors other than the words themselves. And this is my point (and indeed one of the core tenets of Stoicism), that control is an illusion, that real control does not extend beyond the boundary of your own mind, and thusly that the words themselves which you read and hear are not responsible for your reaction, but all this other shit that goes into your interpretation of those words, including your own personal subjective definition and value judgments and worldview.
You do not owe anyone anything when it comes to controlling their minds, and in fact, you are actually doing another person harm when you habituate the mechanics of external mind control by accepting responsibility for the contents of their mind, their reactions according to their subjective value judgments and moral relativity. Supporting the removal of some Youtube channels with unpopular views is precisely how you make habituating mind control more effective than it already is. Society desperately needs more mechanisms for supporting critical thought and (far) less of anything which streamlines shunting mind control around critical thought and into the emotional lizard brain. If anything, our society needs more bad ideas floating around and not less.
So stop helping the advertising industry, the government, mass media manufacturers, racist shitheads, and anybody else who would wish to co-opt the thought processes of those around you! The content of another person's mind is not your responsibility, and arguably none of your business.
That made sense to me when I read it.
The idea of a universal principle of reverence for speech, regardless of its substance, makes no sense to me. In fact, it doesn't make sense to most people. Even on HN, you can find people arguing for decriminalizing child pornography. You have no trouble with that idea being suppressed. Why is white supremacy less loathsome? That's what we say when we suggest white supremacist speech be tolerated.
(Violent neo-Marxism and Shining Path Maoism is trendy among left-edgelords and is equally intolerable).
There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And it's not enough to invoke the Slippery Slope fallacy in response, because even if we could all decide today on the perfect list of topics to prohibit (we can't, but even if I grant you that absurdity), politics and governance absolutely does operate incrementally and no line would long remain static, especially a line that's so easily moved as one defining acceptable speech.
It's just simply not a workable idea. The only thing you can do is make a rule that prohibits the prohibition of speech and then let people fight it out in public, over and over and over and over, just like you and I are doing here.
And to be clear: YouTube (and other private actors) banning speech they don't like is a totally legitimate part of that conversation.
The reason I'm not in search of better arguments is that I don't have any dissonance to resolve. (I realize that sounds snarky but I don't actually mean it to be flippant. That's genuinely what it looks like to me. No snark intended!)
Your interpretation, that persuading a large institution to ban opposition ideas is winning, and being banned is losing, is entirely consistent with getting rid of the 1st amendment.
If you want to keep with this analogy, censorship is a form of protectionism, so your marketplace of ideas is not a free market.
That is pretty much the exact reason the Courts have given for allowing Neo Nazis to march, so its not anathema to how the first amendment has been understood.
It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.
The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government not private entities and attempting to turn it into a club to force private entities to publish speech they find abhorrent is inappropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment, which provides that individuals have the right to say something but not to force others to disseminate it (or even pay attention).
Wanted to touch on this because I think you're missing out on some socio-cultural nuance here. Yes, the Constitution is strictly a limitation on Government, but it is also expected that Citizen's of a Government also internalize the enshrined ethos of their highest laws.
To argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only effects the Government is to strongly demote the force and centrality of said document in Ameri an life. It may only say the Federal/State governments of the United States of America, but the truest message has always been one of the Supremacy of the liberties of the People over the systems that would oppress them. This is why you'll find there is so much resonance and vitriol inspired by the argument that private companies get a pass because they aren't the government. It doesn't matter. The infrastructures there, and it has woven itself tightly into the political fabric and discourse of the United States. I'd make the argument it's a Sixth Estate, of a central and sensitive enough nature that it should be looked at in the same ways we looked at the Press and Fairness Doctrine. Yes, that may have been overturned (and I'm honestly curious as to whether that overturning was truly beneficial), but damn, if you're going to sit by and let private individuals A/B test and gaslight your population in the name of private enterprise, to he'll with the consequences; and elevate whoever ends up in overall control of that edifice in particular... Well... I just don't think that's terribly kosher. Obligation increases to the 4th power of scale and reach. That's just how it seems to be. As an IT person, I internalized that valuelong ago. The bigger and more impactful the system's I end up working on, the more people are counting on me not to abuse my position of power and influence over the system.
I don't think I can buy into any suggestion that it should be any other way...
BTW: I get the impression that sites like Reddit and YouTube, rather than being quick to ban, have given these groups and individual personalities a pass for quite some time. Alex Jones had to start harassing the victims of school shootings to get banned. I doubt someone as well known as him would last that long. If anything these platforms keep these people on as long as they can because ad dollars and only ban them when the advertisers revolt.
I'm sure there is a point where it could become an unhealthy slippery slope to kick people off of large platforms, but it is not in the realm of free speech. These people have not been kicked off the internet.