Comment by twelfthnight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by twelfthnight | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting that you could use the first amendment to argue the exact opposite in this ruling. For example, by this logic social media is perfectly in their right to block posts from political positions they disagree with, which many folks might find impinges on their right to free speech.

Seems like a weird case for the Supreme to have taken in the first place, I don't really see how it clarifies anything really, since we still compel businesses to not restrict services based on protected classes.

EDIT:

Feel like I'm being clumsy in my writing above. What I'm trying to argue is--to me--it seems the crux of the case is whether (a) "won't make sites for gay marriage" == (b) "won't serve gay people in my restaurant". The latter is pretty clearly illegal, even the ruling upholds that. So if you think (a) == (b), then the ruling seems contradictory. If you think (a) != (b), then the ruling makes sense, akin to saying "a heavy-metal focused website maker has every right to refuse to make country music websites".

I can see both sides of the argument (a) == (b) and (a) != (b). What I can't see is how the First Amendment can be used to justify whether (a) == (b) or not. If you _already assume_ (a) != (b), then you can say a business shouldn't be compelled to say anything. However, you must first justify that (a) != (b). I don't think this ruling does that, so I don't think it's a very useful ruling for anything in the future, even if I see the merits of preventing overreach in government censorship.

>by this logic social media is perfectly in their right to block posts from political positions they disagree with, which many folks might find impinges on their right to free speech.

Social media has been doing just that for a long time and and people have been defending it saying it is perfectly in their right to do so as a private entity speech cannot be compelled.

>I don't really see how it clarifies anything really, since we still compel businesses to not restrict services based on protected classes.

The entire case was about whether the law forcing the designer to provide services was "compelled speech" which would violate the first amendment

>which many folks might find impinges on their right to free speech.

The constitution protects you from the government impinging on your free speech. It does not protect you from Facebook, your mother, or some random retailer from doing so.

The philosophical concept of "free speech" exists beyond the constitutional concept which is a subset.

> For example, by this logic social media is perfectly in their right to block posts from political positions they disagree with, which many folks might find impinges on their right to free speech.

They clearly are, and always have been, and there are even laws to that effect protecting their right to do so.

People who believe that social media platforms are infringing on their free speech rights by moderating or banning content, even beyond strictly policing legality, are simply incorrect. Freedom of speech has never meant that all available platforms must be compelled to carry your speech.

Of course that’s within their right? Government censorship violates the principle that force is only justified in response to force, and not being allowed to use someone else’s service does not. It’s like saying that not wanting shoes to be banned and wanting to prevent people from wearing shoes in your house are contradictory positions.

The supreme court has become ideologically driven and is following an agenda, not the constitution.

I suspect this majority of the court would think social media is perfectly within their rights to do that -- after all, Citizen's United makes it clear the court thinks corporations have first amendment rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com