Most active commenters
  • MrStonedOne(3)

←back to thread

2525 points hownottowrite | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
Dove ◴[] No.21197342[source]
This is a very specific instance of a much more general problem.

A lot of private companies control exclusive access to something with a value that dwarfs what you pay for it. I pay nothing for access to Twitter; if I build a business or a social life on the platform, it becomes something I would pay thousands of dollars to prevent losing. I pay nothing for access to Facebook; the memories they store at this point in my life may be nearly priceless. I've paid a low triple digit sum for Blizzard games, yet the time and social investments I have made in those games make them a couple of orders of magnitude more valuable to me, now.

The problem is that since these companies control services so valuable to me, anyone who wishes to hurt me for any reason can do it through them. Since no one is paying them to defend me -- I'm certainly not -- they have no resources commensurate with the value of what they're defending.

The situation we're in now is one in which political thugs apply pressure to private companies to hurt individuals, in an attempt to chill free speech.

Free speech is expensive and valuable, and defending it from those who would wish to destroy it requires commensurate resources. We should not expect Blizzard to stand up to the Chinese government; that is the job of the Chinese people, of other goverments, of perhaps the whole world.

To my view, Blizzard is like a store clerk who gives up the store's money to a robber. It would be nice if he was a hero, but he's not equipped for it. Nobody is paying 7-11 to stand up to violent crime. The problem is too big and expensive to ask individuals to deal with. Society paying for police and courts is at least a response on the right scale.

The mechanisms we have for protecting individual rights are antiquaited, and need to be rethought to deal with the current situation. Perhaps a model like the unified response to patent trolls could work? I think, if we want free speech to exist in the current environment, it will have to be something that big.

replies(8): >>21198178 #>>21198582 #>>21199753 #>>21200008 #>>21200332 #>>21203768 #>>21204903 #>>21307213 #
1. tenebrisalietum ◴[] No.21198178[source]
Mostly playing devil's advocate here:

When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically talk. No third party was involved as it is with any telecommunication technology. So the resources consumed in that speech were totally your own.

The only way to strictly have that equivalent in the telecommunications realm is for me to own every communication circuit between me and those who I want to communicate with.

So lets say I have 10 wires coming from my house to other houses, and someone I know has 10 other wires connected to a different set of houses, that I'm not directly connected to.

I can rely on my own self and build new wires (expensive) or I can work with this person to forward my communication (probably cheaper but he/she can view/hear my communication).

If I want to communicate with someone else beyond my network, then a third party is carrying my speech, and we're really no longer in realm of free speech. This third party has rights and should be able to refuse to carry my speech for the same rights and reasons as me, unless entered into a contract beforehand.

I think your real question is should corporations be treated as legal persons to the extent that they have the Constitutional right of speech.

replies(4): >>21198654 #>>21198684 #>>21199381 #>>21219467 #
2. gwright ◴[] No.21198654[source]
It seems pretty strange to me that individuals with the right to free speech and the right to assemble and freely associate would lose those rights if they chose the form of a "corporation" as the manner of assembly and association. So I don't think the problem is that the law treats groups of people as legal entities with substantially similar rights to the individuals.

I would expect that crimes associated with speech (slander, defamation, fraudulent representations, incitement to violence, threats, etc) would be applicable to individuals and to corporations equally.

I would agree that the control that a handful (relative to all corporations) of online companies wield is something quite new (historically speaking) and our laws, regulations, and even legal principles are playing catchup. We may need some original thinking to help us evolve our legal systems to meet the challenge.

replies(1): >>21202175 #
3. MrStonedOne ◴[] No.21199381[source]
>When the Constitution was written,

They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are.

The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

replies(2): >>21199964 #>>21205077 #
4. anm89 ◴[] No.21199964[source]
Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement!

People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

replies(2): >>21202954 #>>21209837 #
5. bliztw2019a ◴[] No.21202175[source]
Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same?

Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?

replies(1): >>21202644 #
6. gwright ◴[] No.21202644{3}[source]
It is an interesting question.

1) I don't think "corporations" are picking and choosing, there is extensive legal history on this point.

2) Re: "kills someone through their negligence". I think you've abstracted too much for there to be a single answer. I gather you are talking about situations where no identifiable person lead to the death and so there is some sort of "collective" or "systemic" failure that "caused" the death. I think the particular facts matter in those cases and the result is a variety of punishments from fines, to external supervision and inspection, and even in some cases action against individuals that were connected to the faulty decision making. One size doesn't fit all in this case.

replies(1): >>21204876 #
7. unityByFreedom ◴[] No.21202954{3}[source]
> People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece.

I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.

replies(1): >>21204784 #
8. anm89 ◴[] No.21204784{4}[source]
And how many people had freedom of speech in 1750.

Ha and try offending the emperor of China to his face in that era (or now) and let me how long you keep your head for.

replies(1): >>21210572 #
9. pmiller2 ◴[] No.21204876{4}[source]
Regarding point 1, when was the last time an American corporation was put in jail?
10. tenebrisalietum ◴[] No.21205077[source]
Ok, so fine, free speech predates the Constitution. Consider my reference to the Constitution an example, rather than the definition.

My argument is still that you are not performing speech in the sense meant by "Free Speech" when you utilize telecommunication services.

Free speech and compelling third parties with telecommunications infrastructure to carry any of your speech unaltered are separate concepts.

I am particularly interested in how you can, if possible, link the two without using egalitarian arguments if possible.

Most people defend free speech irrespective of the economic status of the speaker so I'm hoping you or someone can come up with something that is also similarly non-dependent on economic status.

replies(1): >>21209669 #
11. MrStonedOne ◴[] No.21209669{3}[source]
it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park.

Should that be an argument against new york having free speech because its not accessible to some people?

Your last sentence confuses me because it sounds like you are arguing that if it's possible for somebody to be too poor to use a platform then that platform should never have free speech, and i'm not sure how those two concepts link.

Anywho. The ideological and moral principles of free speech exist in tandem with other ideological and moral principles. I run a forum for a game server to an open source game (I also run the game and the game server, but that's besides the point). This forum has sections with various names and the section names all spell out what type of discussions that section is intended to hold

If somebody wants to post about how badly they hate how I run the site or the game server, and post it on the role playing and table top rpg board, it will get removed, as its off topic, and nobody in the community would care. If they instead post that in any one of 5 sections that it would be on topic for, and i remove it, as I technically have to right to do, I will have trampled on that posters free speech, and everybody has the right to tell me to fuck off for doing so.

What you are failing to understand is that the principle of free speech is akin to the principle of not being a dick, its enforced by society in the same fuzzy matter where conflicting interests are concerned

12. MrStonedOne ◴[] No.21209837{3}[source]
They never mentioned "legally" either, so why are you bringing that up?
13. unityByFreedom ◴[] No.21210572{5}[source]
Freedom of speech is not permanent. It has to continually be demanded, or it disappears. There will always be people trying to tell you what to do or say. If you don't decide for yourself, someone else will decide for you.
14. sbmassey ◴[] No.21219467[source]
The US first amendment is against Congress abridging the press as well as freedom of speech.

In addition, Milton's 1644 Areopagitica is meant to be an inspiration for the first amendment, and it is all about the need for freedom of the press.