←back to thread

Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

(techcrunch.com)
707 points patd | 6 comments | 27 May 20 12:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
Traster ◴[27 May 20 13:09 UTC] No.23322571[source]▶
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
centimeter ◴[27 May 20 20:00 UTC] No.23329143[source]▶
I think the actual conservative pain point is that they (correctly) observe that freedom of association (i.e. businesses get to choose their customers) only seems to apply when it benefits progressives - contrast Google evicting milquetoast conservatives from Youtube with no legal repercussions versus that baker in Colorado getting sued a bunch of times for not wanting to bake gay, satanist, etc. themed cakes. There are plenty of examples along these lines.

In general, the last 50-60 years have seen private individuals and businesses stripped of their rights to turn away customers, in the US mostly under the guise of the CRA, FHA, etc. YouTube finds itself remarkably (and unsurprisingly) unrestrained by these kind of (progressive) laws.

replies(3): >>23329351 #>>23329485 #>>23330046 #
tootie ◴[27 May 20 20:16 UTC] No.23329351[source]▶
There's ample for why it's illegal to discriminate against classes of people. Imagine business in the 20s with signs saying "Irish need not apply" or "No dogs or Jews". The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

Any "conservative" content that has been kicked off of platforms like YouTube has been specifically targeted not for political reasons but because they were spreading hate speech and/or dangerous disinformation. Things like racism, sexism, religious intolerance, specific accusations (ie Joe Scarborough is a murderer) or dangerous disinformation (ie 5G causes Coronavirus) are not intrinsic to any group of people. There's still plenty of content around mainstream conservatism that can be viewed freely.

I think any attempt to argue a slippery slope isn't valid. People aren't computers and just because you can't apply a mathematically rigorous distinction between these kinds of speech doesn't mean that a reasonable person can't easily distinguish them.

replies(2): >>23329923 #>>23330636 #
defen ◴[27 May 20 21:01 UTC] No.23329923[source]▶
> The recent case with the baker was extending the protection of human rights to gay couples.

He offered to sell them a pre-made cake (in compliance with non-discrimination laws). The question was whether he could be compelled to perform an act of speech (custom-making a cake) that violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs.

replies(1): >>23329991 #
mullingitover ◴[27 May 20 21:06 UTC] No.23329991{3}[source]▶
It was a work for hire service that he refused, the speech argument is pretty flimsy (to me at least). To me it's like trying to say that your hedge trimming service is a creative act, and thus speech, so your landscaping company can deny service to a same-sex couple. I guess reasonable people can disagree, but we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to. I doubt history will be kind to that SC decision.
replies(3): >>23330179 #>>23330333 #>>23330917 #
1. defen ◴[27 May 20 21:34 UTC] No.23330333{4}[source]▶
In general, trimmed hedges don't inherently convey a meaningful message, but if you asked someone to trim the hedges into a message that violated your sincerely-held religious beliefs then I think the same principle would apply.

> we wouldn't be as conflicted it it was an interracial couple that he was denying services to

I don't believe you would be able to make a "sincere religious conviction" argument against it - I'm not aware of any mainstream religions that prohibit interracial marriage as part of their doctrine (as opposed to an epiphenomenon of the cultural practices of the people who make up the group).

replies(1): >>23330510 #
2. mullingitover ◴[27 May 20 21:50 UTC] No.23330510[source]▶
> I don't believe you would be able to make a "sincere religious conviction" argument against it

People have used sincere religious arguments against interracial relationships for decades if not centuries. The reason it's not invoked now is because we've had a couple generations where the law of the land was obviously morally superior to the scriptures, to the point it's not seriously debated anymore.

replies(1): >>23330861 #
3. defen ◴[27 May 20 22:24 UTC] No.23330861[source]▶
As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the scriptures of any major religions regarding interracial marriage (which makes sense, since the modern conception of race didn't exist thousands of years ago when most of them were written). So I'm not sure what "sincere religious belief" those people would have been using in their arguments - just being a Christian doesn't automatically make any sincere belief you hold a religious one. Many religions do have scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality, however.
replies(2): >>23331496 #>>23331622 #
4. mullingitover ◴[27 May 20 23:33 UTC] No.23331496{3}[source]▶
> So I'm not sure what "sincere religious belief" those people would have been using in their arguments - just being a Christian doesn't automatically make any sincere belief you hold a religious one.

There are absolutely sincere people whose religious beliefs are that interracial marriage is morally wrong[1].

> Reagan says many black athletic stars choose white wives in a willful attempt to make their offspring lighter, challenging God’s plan. “He don’t want them to be like him, so he’ll marry another. … It’s another defiance of God’s law, it’s a worldly way.” And the pastor condemns fellow ministers who perform interracial marriages. “Some of the men in pulpits should have a pantywaist instead of a preacher coat on!”

[1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/02/19/tennessee-pas...

5. macintux ◴[27 May 20 23:46 UTC] No.23331622{3}[source]▶
Arguably the most powerful Christian organization in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, was founded to support slavery.

What's actually in scripture has very little to do with the religious beliefs many profess.

replies(1): >>23333509 #
6. defen ◴[28 May 20 04:51 UTC] No.23333509{4}[source]▶
I'm not religious so I don't really support it, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between "my religious organization was founded with the express purpose of supporting slavery, at a time and place when slavery was the most important political issue in the country" and "homosexuality is just one of a long list of things that are banned, but is not called out in any sort of special way"