Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyolfen | Hacker News Reader

freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. google is a private company and can show whatever they want.

I'm curious about what kind of consequences you think that investigative journalism deserves.

They are a monopoly in search, right? Doesn't that place extra obligations on them, such as to not abuse their power against competitors or the public?

It doesn't seem to.

In what way are they monopoly on search? There are perfectly viable alternatives, some even from other trillion dollar companies (i.e bing).

This is the unintentionally funniest comment I've seen all week (sorry googlers)

Google Search has a market share of over 85% [0], if that's not a monopolistic market share I don't know what is.

0: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-...

This from the same company who disables youtube dislikes? Talk about excuses.

>freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Freedom of speech is literally freedom from consequences:

>Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

Note the "without fear of retaliation" part. Retaliation for words is the litmus test for a lack of freedom of speech.

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

That only applies to the government, not to individual companies.

Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government...

You're conflating the 2400 year old concept of freedom of speech with the American first amendment.

Where did you learn this horrifying misconception?

I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live.

I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to?

They are acting as the digital public square and free speech is protected in the public square.

But don't take my word for it. Please, let hipster Rasputin Jack[off] Dorsey explain: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399105306324993

But then he immediately essentially says its unsustainable? https://twitter.com/jack/status/1037399132116340736

>I am saying there is only one legal precedent for Freedom of Speech, at least where I live.

That's not what you said though. This is:

>Freedom of Speech does nothing for you outside of the government...

Again, where did you learn this? I've asked everyone who says it and they never answer. I'd love to learn the source of this horrible misconception so I can do something about it.

>I don't think these platforms ever mention they are trying to protect freedom of speech, so why would you expect them to?

Reddit did, repeatedly. Then pulled a bait & switch:

>We want to democratize the traditional model by giving editorial control to the people who use the site, not those who run it.

— Reddit FAQ 2005

>We've always benefited from a policy of not censoring content

— u/kn0thing 2008

>A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like it," he replies. [reddit]'s the digital form of political pamplets.

— u/kn0thing 2012

>We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal.

— u/reddit 2012

>We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to uphold it - but because we believe in that ideal independently, and that's what we want to promote on our platform. We are clarifying that now because in the past it wasn't clear, and (to be honest) in the past we were not completely independent and there were other pressures acting on reddit. Now it's just reddit, and we serve the community, we serve the ideals of free speech, and we hope to ultimately be a universal platform for human discourse (cat pictures are a form of discourse).

— u/yishan 2012

>Neither Alexis [u/kn0thing] nor I created Reddit to be a bastion of free speech

— u/spez 2015

> Again, where did you learn this?

Comprehension of the words in the amendment. It's what it means.

But it doesn't define free speech...

I would have to reference previous defining court cases if you want specifics: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

I mean it still doesn't define it.

All the first amendment does is place restrictions on the government. Free speech is not defined by the amendment at all. It's a wholly separate concept.

So how does this all encompassing freedom of speech work? Am I allowed to come to your house and say whatever I want and you can not throw me out? Now you might say your house is not a public space. So what about your garden? I guess I can come over and place any signs I like in your garden because it's my freedom of speech.

That is the problem with these arguments if you actually think them through consequently it becomes completely impractical, because by forcing a "freedom from consequences" you violate every other right.

    "The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this 
    by stating that the exercise of these rights carries 
    "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be 
    subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or 
    respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or 
    the protection of national security or of public order 
    (order public), or of public health or morals."

So no, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com