Comment by weyland108 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by weyland108 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He is making a false analogy. The Fire argument is tested in court and essentially regulated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the....

The disturbing part about these bans is they seem to be done unilaterally if not coordinated by private for profit tech companies.

Drifting from the original comment here but: Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states... what message does that send to the other world leaders?. Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.

> Consider this twitter and facebook unilaterally decided to ban the president of the united states...

Note that “ban” here is “from using their respective platforms”.

> what message does that send to the other world leaders?

That private parties operating in the US with the freedom provided by its Constitution may choose not to amplify their speech despite their position of authority?

> Last I checked nobody elected Zuckerberg and Dorsey.

Last I checked, the freedom of speech and the press meant you didn't need to be elected to a position of government authority to have the right to decide what messages you were willing to use your resources to amplify.

Am I missing something? The article you linked cites:

    Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 ... banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

It seems to directly apply

Reply on news.ycombinator.com