Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Freedom of speech != broadcasting rights

So you’re saying it’s fine for only certain ideas to be able to be broadcast to the world? Forget the government’s role in it, I’m not talking about that whatsoever. I mean, philosophically, are you okay with a small number of companies controlling what can or can’t be broadcast?

Politicians looooove free broadcasting rights tho.

Just like shop owner shouldn't refuse to sell you something, because he doesn't like your hair color, social media company shouldn't refuse to broadcast your speech.

Note that this is different from tv or radio, because then the broadcasting company has to do additional work to broadcast your speech, but with social media the company has to do additional work to block it.

Edit: can't -> should't (sorry english is not my first language)

> social media company can't refuse to broadcast your speech.

No, they don't. You might think that they should have to, but as things are today, they don't.

Wait. Where were you when the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?! Smh..

This is a good example too. A baker cannot be forced to do unusual or creative work he doesn't like, but refusing to sell pre-made cake, or refusing to do routine customizations (like selecting colour or text if these are always done for other customers), is wrong. So as far as i can tell from wikipedia article the decision of US court was wrong, and the situation republicans find themselves in, is in a way deserved.

I am not from US, and I think it's really sad that most people think, that by opinion on one issue it is possible to infer opinions on all the other issues. Social media makes it too easy to create echo chambers, and see only strawman versions of other sides arguments, freedom of speech and tolerance is the only way to heal the society.

It’s a private company. So long as it’s not discriminating on legally defined grounds, it’s free to do whatever the hell it wants.

The official broadcasting channels of the us gov remain fully open at Mr Trump’s disposal.

Businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is specifically discriminating against a person for being part of a protected class. Hair color is not a legally protected class last time I checked.

The idea of a protected class is a fascist one.

A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Everyone has the same rights and protections.

How the same people who complained about apartheid can then reinvent it in under 20 years is beyond me.

Please stop posting ideological flamebait to HN. Comments that take threads, and the site, further into hell are just what we're trying to avoid here. You've been doing this a lot lately, and we ban such accounts, regardless of which politics you favor or disfavor.

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

> Just like shop owner can't refuse to sell you something, because he doesn't like your hair color, social media company can't refuse to broadcast your speech.

Might want to do research before arguing. This is incredibly inaccurate. Only discriminating against protected classes is illegal, shop owners can refuse to serve you for any other reason.

I am not talking about laws in any particular country, but the way things would work in practice.

If you see a shop owner refuse service to a girl because of green hair, would you say "that's ok, not a protected class so she had it coming" or would you refuse to do business with that shop owner, and demand fair treatment?

The left is anti-trust when big companies get too much power.

The left is pro-free market when big companies are anti-conservative.

Censorship != government censorship

I've heard this argument a lot lately. What other amendments should we allow corporations to break?

You are also only saying this because your side is the one doing the censoring. If Republicans had control of all tech and media and you were almost completely censored, I think your opinion would change.

We've been completely censored for a long time now...

I'm actually saying the opposite — bad things are bad when corporations do them, even if for now legal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com