Proof that freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet, short of launching a new AS.
Sometimes I wonder if the US government should offer some kind of basic web hosting to citizens to guarantee this fundamental right.
Sometimes I wonder if the US government should offer some kind of basic web hosting to citizens to guarantee this fundamental right.
Practically speaking, this means the government cannot penalize you for what you say. Aside from the fact that what this website is doing is not really speech (it is acting as a data controller), they aren't being penalized by the government, but by the hosting providers.
There is no violation of first amendment rights here. Just the (mistaken) nebulous concept of "Free Speech".
Personally I don’t have more than a nebulous idea of what I think the shape of free speech ought to be: {fire in a crowded theatre, parasite medicine during a viral pandemic, homeopathic cancer remedies in general} seem like harmful things to allow, but the reason society (collectively rather than just the individuals within it) should allow and encourage free speech is to find the stuff where we’re all incorrectly confident what is and isn’t true. It combats groupthink.
Likewise, who should that freedom bind? Just the government, nobody else? That’s great where communication is mediated by public-owned forums, public-owned post, and public-owned telephone networks, but most communication is now mediated my private companies.
Compelling all private companies to be content-neutral in the same way as the government? I don’t see the downsides, but it is a radical change and I am a very long way from any form of law let alone constitutional.
But the point is, this is about what isn’t, not what is.
But it has never guaranteed that you'd have a platform from which to say those things... which is the same guarantee you get from Facebook or anywhere else.
Goverment: no guarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because of the First Amendment.
Facebook: no quarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because they're not the government.
Also, it's unclear what legal mechanism could even be put in place to prevent companies from banning and censoring. And it's fraught with problems because you're trying to guarantee a platform, something the First Amendment never intended. Are companies allowed to delete comments? What if they're old comments? Do you have to keep them forever? Who pays for that? Can you delete porn? The First Amendment allows you to say "f--k" over and over and over as long as you're not threatening. Can you imagine people on, say, a religious board posting that over and over? And the organization wasn't allowed to censor it?
It's a massive can of worms.
Finally, on my blog I want the freedom to delete any comments for any reason or for no reason.
Here is a deliberately hyperbolic scenario to illustrate the problem:
If a future government sold all their land to private interests who have opinions about what can and cannot be said, then undesirable people have nowhere to stand while doing the speaking, and those private entities can punish those they don’t like thanks to trespass laws.
This feels like it would de-facto remove freedom of speech even if the government itself passed no new laws.
> It's a massive can of worms.
Agreed 100%, that’s the point of my disclaimers about not knowing enough to have strong, well-defined opinions, nor having relevant skills, both near the start and end of my previous comment.
The deliberately hyperbolic scenario which results from what's being proposed here - that platforms be forced to publish all legal content regardless of their intent - is that governments declare all websites to be platforms, and thus governments directly control all online communication and publishing, and then simply declare any speech they dislike to be illegal.
In essence, what is being argued is that in order to protect free speech we cannot trust private citizens or any communities they form to exercise freedom of association. Yet the same community that considers everything else that governments do a violation of their fundamental civil liberties and a naked and obvious pretext towards rounding up dissidents for the gulags seems to implicitly trust the same governments to act as fair and impartial arbiters of online speech, to the point that they consider giving up what were (until some point in 2016) considered essential liberties to be a necessity.
If the scenario where governments cede all of their authority and property to private interests you mentioned earlier is reasonable enough to be actionable, then this scenario which at least describes things that governments have historically actually done, should be even more actionable.
Yet, given the choice of Facebook not having secret police, and it being possible to simply create other networks on the open internet if you disagree with Facebook's terms, and Facebook having secret police, and the creation or moderation of any new network being directly overseen by governments, and terms of service being enforced by the state's monopoly on violence, people would rather Facebook have secret police.
The flipside would be people having the right to protest on your private property whenever they felt like it.
Or, back in techland, the right to say whatever they wanted on your blog's comment section.
I hear ya, but it's going to be a massive challenge to come up with a cure that's A) Constitutional and B) not worse than the disease.
There are no fundamental rights being violated here.
Edit: Actually, with Tor the static IP should be unnecessary. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection.
I'm starting to think that can't be counted on as a viable option. It's one thing to deny someone access to a particular platform (e.g. Facebook), it's quite another to deny access to basic infrastructure services (e.g. DNS) for something that isn't actually illegal. The former should not utility-like access rules, but the latter probably should.
You might believe these providers looked through their ToS in search for a reason but I hope you agree with me that there is a difference between freedom of expression and data collection.
The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard.
I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.
It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.
That depends on the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
Depends on the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.
[snip]
> This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.
However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
> Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town.
[snip]
> In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
E.g., https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-inter...