Parler's Fantastic Free Speech Thread

[Gorbles]

Legally yes. But if you are denied a platform to express your views, your freedom is equally restricted regardless if platform was denied by state or private company.

Except that's not true. Your freedoms are restricted in both cases, but they are nowhere near equally-restricted. This is why restriction by state is so important to define, because it allows for the silencing of dissent, the removal of right to fair trial, and all these other things.

Getting kicked off of Twitter isn't any of that. It's called getting kicked off of Twitter. It's like getting banned from a forum.

There is an argument to be made that for people with a significant following on a social media platform, being removed from that platform can cost them quality of life. A lot of marginalised people rely on support networks on social media platforms, and they can be harassed or fake-reported off of said platform.

But that argument doesn't apply to somebody willingly violating ToS and getting smacked with the modhammer.

 

[JPetroski]

I've linked this same comic repeatedly on FB to my conservative friends and family. It has the effect you would imagine. . .silence.

Wonder why it hasn't had that effect here. It's pretty much on point, with a little nuance to the first cell of course.

 

[red_elk]

Except that's not true. Your freedoms are restricted in both cases, but they are nowhere near equally-restricted. This is why restriction by state is so important to define, because it allows for the silencing of dissent, the removal of right to fair trial, and all these other things.

No, if we are talking only about denying the platform, restriction is equal in both cases. Depends only on how many people can be reached by that platform.
State intervention is more dangerous only because it can potentially go much farther than denying one platform.

 

[Moriarte]

censorship can only truly be accomplished at the point of the gun by government

Way I see it, censorship is not difficult at all, it is easily and successfully applied by many respectable digital platforms, this one included. We can talk about degrees of censorship, sure. But saying it can only be truly accomplished within governmental grasp is a puzzling thought to me - as if governments are aliens operating differently from the rest of us. Editors censor writers, nvidia censors youtubers, media outlets carefully monitor if news pieces fall in line with ideological leanings of their main sponsors, CFC censors inappropriate messages. Now, whether separate instances of usage are just or excessive is debatable. I am convinced censorship and thus suppression of freedom of speech is necessary to maintain healthy discourse. If you don’t like the word “censorship”, come up with a different word describing the process, emphasising general public, but not the government.

State intervention is more dangerous only because it can potentially go much farther than restricting one platform.

Facebook/Google/Amazon can be more dangerous than most governments on the planet. They have the cash and the coverage 99% of governing bodies on the planet can only dream of.

 

[caketastydelish]

I


Legally yes. But if you are denied a platform to express your views, your freedom is equally restricted regardless if platform was denied by state or private company.

No, because that isn't what "freedom" entails, at least to me.

 

[Gorbles]

No, if we are talking only about denying the platform, restriction is equal in both cases. Depends only on how many people can be reached by that platform.
State intervention is more dangerous only because it can potentially go much farther than denying one platform.

These things don't happen in isolation. The mere action of the state denying the platform matters more than the private company (that owns the platform, to be clear).

Facebook/Google/Amazon can be more dangerous than most governments on the planet. They have the cash and the coverage 99% of governing bodies on the planet can only dream of.

Yes and no. Internationally, you are correct. Within the scope of a single country, a government can absolutely impact its citizens' lives in ways the big tech megacorps (currently) only dream of. And bear in mind the excesses of these companies is allowed by the state.

 

[cardgame]

No, because that isn't what "freedom" entails, at least to me.

depends how highly you value the freedom of individuals versus the freedom of faceless corporate monsters

 

[caketastydelish]

Individuals have alternative venues to express their free speech and rhetoric. Anyone who opposes those spaces guaranteed to them would be the monster. Hence why I'm against antifa.

 

[red_elk]

Within the scope of a single country, a government can absolutely impact its citizens' lives in ways the big tech megacorps (currently) only dream of.

Government can also in a lot of ways impact megacorps and their decision makers, by the way.

 

[Berzerker]

The Democrats have been harassing platforms to censor people, thats why this has become an issue. So arguing corporations can do what they want misses the point, they'll do what the government wants and thats the problem.

 

[Arwon]

Individuals have alternative venues to express their free speech and rhetoric. Anyone who opposes those spaces guaranteed to them would be the monster. Hence why I'm against antifa.

Good article here about the 43 Group, who did exactly this kind of direct disrupting of fascist spaces in post war England, including not just breaking up rallies but also running intel against them, figuring out their private meeting plans, and attacking them there too.

 

[caketastydelish]

I disapprove.

edit: more broadly speaking, I disapprove of terrorism in any and all forms with no exceptions.

 

[The_J]

I think the issue which is not addressed is if the companies are doing whatever they're doing because of their own motivation.
If AWS removes parler because they honestly think that they violate their rules, then this is their good right.
If they feel pressured by the public or the government to do so (even if there's no direct order of any kind), then this is... in some way censorship/a violation of their free speech, because they're not really doing it by free will.
And it's not really possible to distinguish that.

 

[Gorbles]

The Democrats have been harassing platforms to censor people, thats why this has become an issue. So arguing corporations can do what they want misses the point, they'll do what the government wants and thats the problem.

* politicians exert undue impact on social media platforms. No need to indulge your wild fantasies, here. This is an issue that is most definitely bipartisan in nature.

 

[IglooDame]

I think the issue which is not addressed is if the companies are doing whatever they're doing because of their own motivation.
If AWS removes parler because they honestly think that they violate their rules, then this is their good right.
If they feel pressured by the public or the government to do so (even if there's no direct order of any kind), then this is... in some way censorship/a violation of their free speech, because they're not really doing it by free will.
And it's not really possible to distinguish that.

Feeling pressured by the public via boycotts or the threat of them is in some way censorship or a violation of free speech? No.

More broadly, you'd think some of these conservatives would already understand companies being entitled to serve or not serve according to their established guidelines, after supporting the bakers in the SCOTUS wedding cake case.

 

[The_J]

To take an example simplified to the extreme: If I'm talking about my political point of view (or whatever), and someone stands in front of me and yells "shut up, or I'll punch you in the face", then we're definitely somewhere in this area.
Just that it's not me, but a company, and the general public.

I would explicitely not put a boycott in there though. There has been ... last year this discussion about cancel culture, and I think that was related to speakers at universities. If I pressure the university to cancel the event, then I'm infringing on their right of free speech. If I'm boycotting them, then I'm exercising my own. I see a difference there.
I admit that I'm not sure if it's valid after thorough scrutinizing. It might not be.

 

[cardgame]

I disapprove.

edit: more broadly speaking, I disapprove of terrorism in any and all forms with no exceptions.

You also disapprove of the nazi hunters in post-war France, I assume?

edit: your disapproval is basically asserting that nazism is a valid political ideology worth protecting as legitimate free speech. I disagree.

 

[uppi]

I would explicitely not put a boycott in there though. There has been ... last year this discussion about cancel culture, and I think that was related to speakers at universities. If I pressure the university to cancel the event, then I'm infringing on their right of free speech. If I'm boycotting them, then I'm exercising my own. I see a difference there.
I admit that I'm not sure if it's valid after thorough scrutinizing. It might not be.

It depends what form the pressure takes, but in my opinion pressure is at least partially also covered by freedom of speech. In any case you will have conflicting rights to freedom of speech, so some sort of compromise has to be found.

Because of these conflicting rights, I think the state should refrain from interfering too much with this pressure. This comes at the cost that sometimes the right to free speech is infringed, but there is not much we can or should do about it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

this is perhaps the strongest argument against any sort of nationalization/public utility of telemessaging services. If the government owned them you wouldn't be able to shut these things down because it would be a 1A issue.

Related:

The courts have consistently ruled that Trump cannot block Twitter users on his government Twitter accounts because that is government censorship. I believe this also applied to his personal account as well because he used that account to announce public policy, therefore making it a de facto government account.

 

[caketastydelish]

You also disapprove of the nazi hunters in post-war France, I assume?

edit: your disapproval is basically asserting that nazism is a valid political ideology worth protecting as legitimate free speech. I disagree.

I believe all political ideologies are worth protecting as legitimate free speech with no exceptions.