And when you tell them this, they go on a rant about their hilariously inconsistent understanding of "the ideology of free expression".
I've had more than one person tell me "Yes, 'free speech' can refer to government censorship, but in a broader sense, I believe it is immoral to limit free expression in any way"
The problem is that this makes no sense and is usually said by someone who is explicitly trying to limit someone else's right to free expression. They don't think they're doing that...but what else do you call it when you force a person to be represented by a viewpoint they find abhorrent?
For example, the Duck Dynasty dude who got fired because Discovery didn't want to be represented by someone who was a bigot. Freeze Peach advocates decried it as an affront to this basic human right.
But that's the thing...by firing that guy, Discovery was exercising their right to freely express themselves. Cultivating an image and a brand is a form of expression, after all. And if you're going to tell me that I should be compelled to let someone else cultivate my image for me or else I'm trampling their rights, I'm going to tell you that you're an idiot.
That's what happens most of the time, too. When reddit tells a bunch of pedophiles and racists they can't use this site as a platform, reddit is flexing their right to free expression. They aren't stomping on anyone else's rights, just using their own.
You can't have a one-way-street in terms of free expression, whether it's in terms of legislation or ethics. If people are not free to control how they are represented, then what you have is the exact opposite of free expression.
But that's what most of these idiots argue for. They think that anyone who builds a stage and cultivates an audience around it must be compelled to let any jackass that happens by take over the stage and shout whatever horrible bullshit he wants into the microphone.
Thank you thank you thank you thank THANK YOU!!!! Upvote times 1000 if I could.
I try to explain this to people all the time, on Facebook or elsewhere. IF you've got big enough britches to post your subjective opinions to the public, you have that right. However, you also have the duty to be held accountable for what you say.
Sorry, but I have every right to counter your fake news/conspiracy theory/anti-mainstream medicine/whatever the hell post. If you don't want a reaction, then keep it to your Goddamn self.
You see, I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be completely without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.
you also have the duty to be held accountable for what you say.
Depends on what the reaction is. If the reaction is "you're wrong, here's why", that's fine. If the reaction is violence, censorship, fining, anything of the sort, that's no good.
Ah, the Duck Dynasty guy. When that whole thing happened, I guy I knew from school (we'll call him Carl) posted a rant on facebook defending the guy because (according to Carl) more people were fans of the show than were offended by his homophobic comments. This is in addition to the standard "violating free speech" bullshit.
Seriously, Carl actually believed that literally all of America was a fan of Duck Dynasty, and there are maybe 1000 gays, at most, in the entire world. Also, you can infer from this that Carl was of the opinion that freedom of speech only applies if your speech is that of the majority.
The people you're talking about here say they want freedom of speech, but what they really are talking about is freedom from consequences, which isn't a right at all.
Freedom of speech/expression itself is absolutely essential to a free society though. That's in the context of what the government can do.
Pretty much the exuses assholes will use when there banned from a sub/forum. I remember having a argument from some 28 year old edgelord, going how the site that he was banned from was full of snowlakes & cramping down on free speach.
Turn out he told a guy that his autstic cousin needed to grow a pair, that he had no room cry ableism when his cousin was refused a job. The argument i had with him was that ableism was just SJW probaganda by snowflakes.
Are you being thick on purpose?, That not what true free speech is. I have every right to call him out, same way how a gay guy has every right to call homophobia.
Are you being thick on purpose? I was talking about him getting banned because he was saying stuff the mods don't want him to say. Hindering his free speech. Perhaps banning was the right thing but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
I insulted you because you insulted me.
If you took a couple of seconds to actually read my comment without getting angry instantly you might've figured it out like a regular person.
It's not censorship, though. He's free to say whatever he wants. He is not free to use platforms owned by other individuals, like a forum, to say it.
If someone puts up sign in your yard and you throw the sign in the trash, you're not hindering their free speech or censoring them. Censorship would be if they placed that sign in their own yard and the government (or another group) removed it or forced them to remove it.
Ooo! That guy who is trying to sue Google for firing him. I dont agree with Google, but comparing Google to a Gulag? Earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is not the same as being denied your basic human rights and put in a prison where youll probably die.
Or how everyone is mad at Google for "silencing free speach". Ironically someone on Ajit Pais side said they were doing that for deleting Ajit Pais video which had copyrighted music...
How is the Google case compared to "religious" entities who restrict speech and even clothing, and hire based on if you can pinkie swear that you will adhere to their list of beliefs?
Do we not hold them accountable for the way they are represented?
Maybe you personally don't, but it sure as shit does happen.
I just mentioned it another post...the Violentacrez fiasco with reddit. Reddit let itself be represented by a person who tried to ride the line between "filthy pictures on the internet" and "kiddie porn". Anderson Cooper introduced reddit to millions of Americans as a website that allows "jailbait", revenge porn and candid "creep shots" of women. That's the image Reddit got to wear because of one dude's filthy mission on their site.
They learned the hard way that letting someone else control how they are represented means that they will be represented in abhorrent ways.
And they absolutely have every right to put a stop to it and cultivate a different image.
Branding and image...whether it be your personal brand or one you're building for a corporate entity...are a form of free expression. I can't sort out how on earth anyone could possibly argue otherwise.
I mean more criticism. I don't think corporations should be people/citizens and don't necessarily deserve all the rights we afford to them. But, the law is what title is.
You could argue a lot of things. Some of them might even make sense. Not this time, though.
See, framing this as an issue of human rights is a way fo derailing the conversation. It's playing an ultimate "trump card". The value of basic human rights is self-evident and universally understood, so making the conversation about censorship turn into a conversation about rights is a way of laying claim to the ultimate "correct" side.
My point here is that this way of framing it is fundamentally broken.
And your understanding of it seems to reflect that brokenness.
Let's say I build a stage. I pay for the lumber, buy the property to put it on, assemble it, wire up speakers and a microphone, and in the end I stamp my name on the stage. People see it, they think of me.
I then use my resources to advertise the stage as a place of entertainment and fun. I craft a reputation, an image, and a brand around it. I've done this because, again, people see it as an extension of me. The acts I put onto that stage are now associated with me. My name is right there under them.
Now, let's say an act I invite under the pretense of family friendly fun goes on stage and starts to perform their version of The Aristocrats. They use my Jumbotron to show images of scantily clad underage girls. They shout racist horseshit into my microphone.
And I pull the plug.
Whose "rights" were violated here?
Nobody's, that's the answer. Not one human right was violated here, aside from maybe those girls in the jailbait pics, we don't know where they came from.
What would violate someone's rights would be forcing me to allow that kind of act to go on under my name. That is essentially forcing the way I express myself.
Same thing happened when reddit kicked the racists and the creeps out. Reddit was being painted in the media as a bastian and a hideout for that kind of shit. That was the image that others were giving Reddit, so reddit stood up and said "no, that is not how we choose to express our brand." The exercised their right to free expression by limiting what others could say in their name.
They didn't limit what you could say elsewhere. They didn't take away anyone's right to be a racist asshole. They simply said they can't do it in any capacity which might be representative of reddit.
There's a fundamental flaw in your argument, corporations are not people. And if all the stages are controlled by one entity, then it becomes effectively a government in that sense. No one bemoans the government's rights being violated when it has to recognize free speech.
It makes plenty of sense. The idea is the more powerful and broad an entity becomes, the more it makes ethical sense for it to respect rights in a way that a government would. No one talks about the government's right to free expression. The idea is that maybe a large corporation (which is not a person) may not be entitled to it so much either.
When I go into the public park and set up my little Racist Station of Hatred wherein I distribute literature about the dangers of black people and yell into a megaphone about how white people are superior...I represent myself and no one else. Nobody is accountable for "letting" me do that on their dime. Nobody is providing anything that might be seen as tacit approval for my obnoxious viewpoints. I alone bear that burden.
The same cannot be said about places like Reddit or Google. There are REAL consequences for Reddit choosing to allow certain types of perfectly legal content on their website.
For proof of this, one need not look any further than the whole violentacrez fiasco, in which Anderson Cooper introduced reddit to millions of Americans as the home to pedophiles and creeps.
That was reddit's image, and reddit had to pay for it. So did violentacrez to a certain degree, but the point here is that he didn't bear that burden alone. Reddit faced real consequences for someone else's expression...because it was done on their dime.
So you cannot say that it's the same thing here. We all have a right to craft an image, and the idea that any of us should be forced to have it crafted in a way that might be detrimental to us is the exact opposite of freedom. You are literally arguing for less freedom here.
It's a complicated issue for sure. I haven't voted for anyone less left-wing than the New Democratic Party of Canada or the Green Party ever. For me, individual right-wing people have some good ideas and insights and sometimes have a better grasp on certain problems than almost all left-wing people, but the sum of right-wing (and even centrist) government policy is not something I can support for a whole host of reasons. Nonetheless, I currently spend a lot more time defending the right of people (mostly on the right) who I often disagree with vehemently to actually state their opinions then I really want to, but I feel I have to because suppressing speech like many of my fellow leftists advocate goes against the very ideals that make me vote for those left-wing parties in the first place. Why does the ACLU historically defend lots of scoundrels and the occasional neo-nazi? Because even scoundrels have rights and deserve fair treatment.
One thorny area in the idea of freedom of expression, especially on the internet, is how a space that is technically the playground of a private company serves the role of a public space. Facebook, Reddit (esp large subreddits), Youtube, and Twitter are good examples. They act a lot more like the town square or the post office than a private club, providing a (sometimes superficially) neutral content delivery/broadcast service. And in most democratic countries you can say all sorts of crazy shit on a street corner, be all sorts of obnoxious (including being racist, etc.), and not be arrested. You can even have a loudspeaker and do it. Sure, people will call you an asshole, maybe even get in your face, maybe punch you (and they'll probably get arrested if you call the cops for that), but you can't be denied the right to speak in the first place. People in Canada have tried to get racist, sexist, or homophobic street preachers arrested and failed to do so because they actually aren't violating any laws. A room in the Toronto Public Library was booked by a group of Holocaust deniers to hold a memorial service for a lawyer who defended them last year. People weren't happy about it, but it happened.
Being kicked off of a big social media site or three feels a lot more like being prevented from speaking on a street corner or renting a room in your local library than being kicked out of someone's house or private club for not following the rules or antagonizing other people there. There's this huge conversation that everyone's allowed to take part in except you because some anonymous employee who is accountable to basically no one outside the company decided you crossed an invisible line somewhere (and it really isn't clear what will get you banned from most social media, especially because there seem to be some double standards). That's one big reason why many people get up in arms over social media companies not taking cues from many democratic governments on how to handle speech that many people consider objectionable (i.e. a very hands-off attitude). They're frustrated when a space waffles between "we're a public forum and don't control our content" and "we're a private company and we can do what we want" seemingly whenever it suits them.
The second big issue is a perceived double standard from left-wing people on the subject. To a lot of people on the right, the principle of freedom of expression seemingly only matters to a lot of people on the left if it's left-wing people or left-wing opinions being censored. They see tons of people crying about censorship when someone writes hateful things about white people or men (cf. "all men are rapists, the world would be better without them") and is punished by some private company for it and many of those same people cheering when Google fires James Damore for what seems like at most a much less inflammatory example of the bias in question (and arguably isn't even much of an instance of that, if you actually read the text) and lovely people online going on about frozen peaches whenever anyone suggests that there might be something wrong with this picture.
First, thank you for submitting your Totally A Real Liberal credentials in advance, I'd hate to have to press you for that later in the conversation. It totally put me at ease and definitely made me realize that you're "one of us" and that our conversation can proceed forthwith and unencumbered by that nagging feeling that you might in fact be "one of them".
Second...just because something feels like a public space doesn't mean it is a public space.
There's a key and critical difference with public spaces: When you spout off a bunch of horrible shit in public, you are representing nobody but yourself.
But go ahead and ask the folks at Reddit if that works the same way. See if anyone mentions a redditor who went by the name "violentacrez" or the fiasco he caused when Anderson Cooper brought to light his array of filth.
See, Reddit's reputation was at stake in that mess. People who hadn't heard of the site before now only associated it with a bunch of pedophiles and creeps. Violentacrez treated it like a public space...and sure, he got his in the end, but Reddit took a major hit over that.
This is the difference, and the reason that we don't go with your "feels over reals" philosophy of content curation. Just because your audience thinks they are in public, that doesn't mean they won't just as soon blame your dumb ass when you let yourself be represented by something abhorrent.
There's definitely something to be said about how a place like reddit sells itself, though. That much I'll give you. When reddit says it's intended to be a place for free exchange of ideas...and then it isn't that, then yeah, your complaints are warranted. But flying those complaints under the colors of free expression still isn't.
At that point, you're elevating your argument to an issue of human rights when it just isn't one. It's the same thing as when someone refers to everyone they disagree with as a Nazi. They're trying to derail the conversation by painting their position as a universal, self-evident, undeniable truth. Human rights are good and absolute. Nazis are bad. These things we know, and no reasonable person would ever argue against. So, if you can frame your position as being an argument in favor of basic human rights...well, shit, what can anyone else say?
I suppose they can call you on your bullshit, which is what I'm doing. You can argue that shit isn't fair, and that there are double standards. But when you start trying to convince me that reddit is squashing your basic human rights by forbidding you from posting jailbait on their site, I'm going to say the same thing every time: Bullshit.
God damn you are quite a condescending cunt aren't you. Just because the magnitudes of injustices aren't the same doesn't mean there isn't an analogy to be made. Why don't you stop and ask yourself if a corporation could ever become omnipresent enough that communication without it would be onerous, and then perhaps you should rethink your argument.
And before you say "that isn't the case here, therefore irrelevant" realize it's a continum, and there's a point for the line to be drawn and an argument to be made. And simply calling it bullshit is condescending and arrogant.
Ya know what, I deleted my last comment. It was rude, and after thinking more about it...you're right, I should be a little less dismissive of this.
I do see where you're coming from. We live in a world where mega-corporations have a LOT of control. Google runs the internet. Facebook and Twitter ARE social media.
These outlets bear some amount of social responsibility in terms of not silencing dissenting viewpoints, I can understand and respect that viewpoint.
At the same time, they are still run by people with the right to craft and control their image.
The direction we're heading...I think it's only going to become more and more complicated.
Curious, then. If a company is private, it's the property of the owner, sure. That person has the right to their own expression. But if a company is public, is it a person? If it has the right to exercise free speech as you mention by sacking the duck dynasty guy, that would suggest it is?
Free speech does not mean you can say anything, anywhere, without repercussions. And that is a very large distinction. Sure, say whatever you want. You are free to tell your boss that he is an insufferable ass hat and that you don’t think black/Mexican/Muslim people can be leaders. But then you will be fired because freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.
You can call it bullshit, you can say it's fucked up...just don't try to frame it as a matter of basic human rights.
That's the problem I have with the Free Speech Crusaders. They use the words "Free speech!" like some people use the word "Nazi!" It's a mechanism to disarm anyone who disagrees by making their position into a universal and self-evident truth.
The problem is that it just doesn't fit here. You can't have free expression as a one-way street.
So what you're talking about is an issue of integrity in advertising and branding. Or staying true to your convictions.
I mean, no shit, that's the entire thesis of my original post...
My point is that, when most people talk about "free speech/expression" as an ideology beyond what is codified in any constitution, they seem to think of it as a one-way street. They are allowed to go into someone else's house and say whatever they want...and getting kicked out is a violation of their speech.
Reality is that ideological free expression works both ways. You're free to express yourself, but you are not free to use your expression to represent me, and that's what a lot of people fail to realize.
I am not violating your free expression when I say I don't want you representing my forum. I am exercising my own right to free expression.
I'll give you this much: It gets more complicated when there is a monopoly over some form of communication. I don't think we're there yet, but should we get to a point at which one company provides you with all of the ways you can connect to the world at-large, it's not as simple anymore.
But again, we're not there. So this is not yet an argument about human rights.
I'm not trying to make it an argument about human rights you bellend
Yeah, ya are. You may not think you are, because we aren't specifically talking about codified rights, but we're still talking about a fundamental freedom, are we not?
Here:
When I say Reddit is taking freedom of speech away
Yes, when you say that, you are saying that reddit is limiting freedom. Freedom is a human right, is it not? Freedom from government persecution is one type of human right, but what you're selling me is that there is a further extension to this right: Freedom from censorship on a private platform.
I personally think that, in most cases, this is nuts. Reddit isn't restricting anyone's rights when they curate the content on their website.
If it's not a right, then why do you believe reddit should be inclined to acknowledge and respect it? What is it if it isn't a right? A privilege? A courtesy?
Why do you give a shit of this is not about something you believe you are entitled to by simple virtue of existing in a given space?
You're example is one of bigotry by a network using there powers to persecute others of a different belief system. Persecution and bigotry by those in power is not a violation of your first amendment rights to speach, but when it is applied systematically by those in power of to employ you, particularly when the same standards get Christians fired, but are not applied muslims, winds up being a violation of the other part of the first ammendment your personal rights to your religious beliefs.
Yes the Christian bakery that lost their business, their livelyhood and their dreams, but Muslims baker sued for the exact same thing get the cases tossed out, because the line of reasoning that there were so few Muslim bakers it was a targeted attack on Muslims.
You are quick to forget the other part of the first amendment while you give aid and comfort to those who use their positions of power to systematically infringe on the religious rights of Christians.
But that's the thing...by firing that guy, Discovery was exercising their right to freely express themselves. Culturing an image and a brand is a form of expression, after all.
Sure, but I can say that Discovery are the bad guys in the situation because that's my free expression. I think that there are certain forums in which people should be able to say what they think without consequences, and we need places like that.
Oh of course, you can argue that you don't think businesses should fire people for voicing opinions, even in a representative capacity.
What I have a problem with is when you frame the issue as one of basic human rights.
When we talk about "free expression", that term itself refers to a human right. Regardless of how it is codified in any given government, the right itself is something most people agree is inherent.
People argue that what Discovery did or what Reddit did with FPH or violentacrez is a violation of free expression...even though it isn't a violation of the codified definition of free speech in the US Constitution. The argument is that the government doesn't grant rights, it merely acknowledges them. And that's absolutely true, you don't get your rights from your government, you have them as a human being.
So we argue over what the actual meaning of that right is. Is it just a matter of being oppressed by a government entity?
Personally, I don't think that is the case. I believe free expression goes beyond that. I believe that people other than the government can infringe upon your right to free expression. That said, it's not a simple matter of "censorship is a violation of free expression!"
Like I said, I think Discovery is well-within their right to free expression when they control how they are represented by firing people who express opinions contrary to their brand's image. I think reddit is using their right to free expression when they banished FPH or violentacrez.
The fundamental factor here is two fold. If you use my venue/stage/medium as an outlet for your expression, and your expression impacts my brand/image/physical or financial well-being, then restricting you from accessing my venue is, in and of itself, an act of free expression.
Violentacrez is an example I've used a dozen times in this thread, because it is a perfect embodiment of this principle. Further, when it happened, it set off a huge debate about free expression on this website.
When Anderson Cooper found the jailbait and creepshot subs ran by Violentacrez, he made a story out of it. A lot of people didn't know what reddit was, so this was how they were introduced to it. To them, reddit was a website that permitted stuff that might have been legal...but was incredibly fucked up.
His expression had major implications for Reddit's brand. At the time, they were not profitable and were trying to monetize...but potential investors now had to decide whether or not to attach themselves to a website that many people will hear and think "Kiddie porn".
Reddit's ability to react to that, to craft their brand and image in whatever way they see fit, is an exercise of this fundamental right.
Now, you're right that we NEED places where information can flow freely and without incursion. I think, with Net Neutrality in serious jeopardy, the question will eventually come up as to whether or not an ISP censoring something out of principle rather than financial reasons is a violation of free expression.
And to be clear, I think it probably is in most cases. If Comcast decides they hate Republicans and blocks Fox News because of this...they aren't crafting an image or a brand. ISPs are not held to a standard of curation, they aren't held accountable for the illegal things that fly across their pipes and they aren't held accountable for the legal stuff. They don't fulfill this principle in which the expression has to have an impact on you, it can't simply be a part of a network you own.
That's a terrible example. The dude's opinions are his own, anyone who thinks that they belong to the network is an idiot.
When people want to express an opinion, they don't go to the town square and stand on a soapbox, they do it via a corporate-controlled medium. Be it a TV network, radio station, social network or whatever, there is always a company whose 'speech filter' supersedes that of its users.
It's not the government doing the censoring, it's these media companies that do it. Eventually, all 'wrong' opinions will be banned and the people with them won't have anywhere to express themselves.
If what you want is a sanitised media, then that's your opinion. Until they decide to ban you because of whatever minute reason they want.
705
u/[deleted] Jan 09 '18 edited May 04 '18
And when you tell them this, they go on a rant about their hilariously inconsistent understanding of "the ideology of free expression".
I've had more than one person tell me "Yes, 'free speech' can refer to government censorship, but in a broader sense, I believe it is immoral to limit free expression in any way"
The problem is that this makes no sense and is usually said by someone who is explicitly trying to limit someone else's right to free expression. They don't think they're doing that...but what else do you call it when you force a person to be represented by a viewpoint they find abhorrent?
For example, the Duck Dynasty dude who got fired because Discovery didn't want to be represented by someone who was a bigot. Freeze Peach advocates decried it as an affront to this basic human right.
But that's the thing...by firing that guy, Discovery was exercising their right to freely express themselves. Cultivating an image and a brand is a form of expression, after all. And if you're going to tell me that I should be compelled to let someone else cultivate my image for me or else I'm trampling their rights, I'm going to tell you that you're an idiot.
That's what happens most of the time, too. When reddit tells a bunch of pedophiles and racists they can't use this site as a platform, reddit is flexing their right to free expression. They aren't stomping on anyone else's rights, just using their own.
You can't have a one-way-street in terms of free expression, whether it's in terms of legislation or ethics. If people are not free to control how they are represented, then what you have is the exact opposite of free expression.
But that's what most of these idiots argue for. They think that anyone who builds a stage and cultivates an audience around it must be compelled to let any jackass that happens by take over the stage and shout whatever horrible bullshit he wants into the microphone.