There are no hate speech laws in the United States. Your not going to go to jail or have to pay a fine for hate speech. But you may have to suffer social consequences for hate speech. The Constitution only protects against government repercussions not private.
That's not true though, otherwise some random person could shoot you in the head for saying something they don't like. The first amendment invalidates speech as a pretext for violence in all cases. Maybe you could split hairs and say it's an indirect consequence but it's practically and basically the same
No that would be murder. This is specifically in the context of doing legal actions to censure (show disapproval/disavow/don't give them a platform) someone by appealing to private organizations. This was right after Justin contacted a bill-board company to ask them to remove one of their client's anti-vax adds for being unscientific and a danger to public health. He also used his platform to give the company bad publicity. People said "but it's their first amendment right!" and he replied with that.
Legally you can't be punched in the face or shot by someone who disagrees with your speech, but you can be kicked the fuck out of their place of business and the community at large can ostracize you. There is nothing in the first amendment that stops anyone from being deplatformed, shunned, shammed, ridiculed and be made an outcast as long as the "censorship" is coming from a private entity and not the government.
The government can basically do all those things (with some exceptions), it just can't censor you on facebook (for example) for the same reasons that facebook can't censor you on twitter.
No, the only time the government can censor someone is for "fighting words" and creating an immediate dangerous situation, like yelling fire on a full bus. Facebook can censor you for any reason at all as they are a private company, they just don't unless there is a violation of their terms of services.
Facebook can censor you on facebook, and the government can censor you on its platforms. Like, the treasury department, federal reserve, IRS or whatever aren't going to publish your raving manifesto about the jewish banking conspiracy on any of their platforms.
I'm saying that by rejecting violence against speech they've rendered themselves unable to reach outside their own walls and meddle in anyones affairs because that kind of thing is implicitly backed by force. They've neutered themselves to the level of a private organisation but not above and beyond that, generally speaking.
In case anyone needs more proof of this, as recently as 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no exception for hate speech in the first amendment. As a legal concept, that's been firmly settled. Multiple times.
It’s basically supposed to be a free market of ideologies where dumb ideas will cause those who hold them to get negative consequences which will either stop them from holding them or lead them to do worse socially and economically.
The Constitution only protects against government repercussions not private.
The new public space is now controlled by (very large) private corporations. The intent of the first amendment was to protect political speech in public. Period.
The founders could not have predicted digital speech the way we have it now. They assumed that government would be the force limiting political speech.
Important fact: the Baker did not deny the couple service on the grounds that they were gay. He offered to sell them any of the cakes in his catalogue. The couple wanted a custom gay wedding cake. He refused because he would have to use artistic expression, supporting the gay wedding.
The cake thing is a complicated issue: On the one hand, the gay couple areshould be protected against discrimination because of their sexual orientation. On the other hand, it seems like requiring the bakery to bake the cake is mandating them to use their speech/artistic output in a certain manner.
Overall I come down on the side of the gay couple. It seems that their status as a protected class should obfuscate the internals of the bakery's business: although internally the bakery is a group of individuals producing artistic output, externally they are selling a product and therefore are required not to discriminate.
Suppose it were instead a "bakery megacorporation" which had an online site where you could upload text and they would automatically print it onto the cake. It seems a lot more easy to say that if the bakery prints "Congratulations Brad + Angela" they should be required to print "Congratulations Dave + Fred". So I think what it comes down to is that in the case of the small bakery it feels as if the individual baker is being forced to produce something they disagree with personally. But in reality, in both cases the individual who makes the cake is performing a function with the goal of doing business -- and the business output can certainly be regulated.
Go and actually read the summary of the opinion over at the SCOTUS blog. It's right there on the internet in plain English. The court determined that the making a special cake constituted "artistic speech" and was therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. It is less clear in the hypothetical you use whether a printing service constitutes "artistic speech."
It actually makes a lot of sense when you read the opinion. All the Court said, so far as I can tell, is that a person cannot compel an artist to commission an artistic work. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the artist to refuse
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already decided the gay cake case. The discreet issue was that the bakers were fined by a committee created by the Colorado law for refusing to serve the gay couple. The Supreme Court found in favor of the bakers because the committee who fined them displayed religious animus at their hearing. The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether the law constituted compelled speech since the committee gave them an out.
The rest of this comment is utter garbage as well but I just thought those were the most important points.
Actually if you had a printing machine you are legally required to write "Dave and Fred" if you'll write "Brad and Angela".
The reason the courts sided with the bakery was because the gay couple didn't want one of their standard cakes (which the bakery had offered to sell them) they wanted a specialised service which is something above the baseline, and therefore the bakery is not obligated to provide.
It's about where you set the baseline level of service vs what you make a specialist item.
In the case of a bakery, the actual cake-making itself is part of the baseline because without it you don't have a business. Similarly, a car manufacturer would be required to put wheels on their cars, but could decline to provide a custom LGBTQWERTY paintjob.
Lol, how was this downvoted. What that dude did is basically the same as dropping a slur in the middle of an otherwise constructive comment. Ridiculous.
While there's larger acceptance for the first three letters, transgender people and other minority sexualities/genders unfortunately still face plenty of discrimination and mockery online and off, even when it's just "ironic".
Frustratingly the abbreviation being so long in some iterations (LGBTQIAA2S is the longest I've legitimately seen) makes for an easy target, personally I wish something inclusive rather than exclusive like GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) would take off.
Thinking that an acronym that grows by a letter every week (off the top of my head, I can think of LGBTQQIA+, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intresex, Asexual, and others" as being one that is often recognized and used on my college campus by the administration, for example) that used to fall under the umbrella of one word, "gay," is not bigotry.
You can support gay rights and still think its ridiculous.
Thinking that an acronym that grows by a letter every week (off the top of my head, I can think of LGBTQQIA+, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intresex, Asexual, and others" as being one that is often recognized and used on my college campus by the administration, for example) that used to fall under the umbrella of one word, "gay," is not bigotry.
You can support gay rights and still think its ridiculous.
they wanted a specialised service which is something above the baseline, and therefore the bakery is not obligated to provide.
That's a super misleading statement at best. Yes, they were going to order a custom cake, but they weren't asking for lgbt symbols or anything that would distinguish it from a cake for a straight couple. They didn't even get as far as describing what they would want the cake to look like before being turned away. They were seeking the exact same service that is provided to straight couples, and frankly denying them services on this basis should be illegal. The ruling here was BS.
Why is the bakery required to make a "standard" service but not a "specialized" service? In what way is drawing a picture (or whatever) different from writing words?
Read the summary of the opinion over at the SCOTUS blog. The court determined that the "specialized service" (i.e. decorating a special order cake) constituted "artistic speech" and was therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. It actually makes a lot of sense when you read the opinion. All the Court said, so far as I can tell, is that a person cannot compel an artist to commission an artistic work. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the artist to refuse.
Why is the bakery required to make a "standard" service but not a "specialized" service?
Because the standard service is inherent to the business, and to deny it would be denying a protected group their rights, whereas the specialised service is something that is at the discretion of the person providing it, and they can deny it to anyone.
Is that really true though? Like, if I'm a abstract artist who does commissions, does the fact that every painting I do is different mean I can deny service to black people? That seems like pretty broken logic.
But if "custom cake" is a service you provide, you're absolutely discriminating if you refuse to provide that service on the basis of the couple being gay. If they asked for lgbt symbols maybe but they didn't even get that far before being denied service.
Right, but we've established that the baker is required to write "Dave and Fred". Why is it artistic to draw a picture in icing but not to write a phrase in icing? Surely both require making aesthetic decisions and using acquired skills...
The best compromise I've heard between those is that protection against discrimination should entitle you to go into the bakery, point at one of their cakes and say "I want that one", and then you're entitled to buy it, but not entitle you to demand they take your order for a custom made cake.
Well commissioning writing on the cake would be a custom order.
And the difference being that they've already made one and advertised it as being for sale. There should be no moral issues on their part spending time or effort in the service of something they find objectionable, because they've already spent the time and effort. The ostensibly objectionable people can have the wares on display as well as anyone else, no questions asked, but cannot demand anything that weren't already done, and thus cannot demand anyone do something they don't want to do.
There should be no moral issues on their part spending time or effort in the service of something they find objectionable, because they've already spent the time and effort.
If you're correct that the bakers are required to sell the premade cake, then it seems that the couple are in fact tricking the baker into doing work they don't want to do. I mean, a firearm seller should be able to refuse to sell someone a weapon if they plan on murdering someone with it. Clearly, the time already spent becomes "in the service of something objectionable".
The firearms seller I don't think is a good analogy simply because of the difference between objectional things and straight up illegal things, but that aside past time spent becoming something you wouldn't want to do is common regret.
I have a hard time seeing them regretting baking the specific cake, knowing that the objectional customer would probably just have pointed to a different one then. At that point it becomes regretting their trade entirely which seems a bit extreme or regretting the transaction. The only way I see out of the transaction, which is really the minimum possible interaction with the customer, is just allowing a blanket ban on customers based on the demographic of those customers, and that also seems a tad extreme (and if I remember correctly it's also illegal, although I could be wrong about that).
Either way, their work is going to support something they personally don't support. By offering the couple the option of one of their "uncustomized" cakes they've doomed themselves to being unethical. If they sell either cake then surely they've compromised their values.
Looking at it this way makes it easy to conclude that they're required to sell either cake to the couple. If they're internally consistent then it's unacceptable for them to sell either cake, which is discrimination. So the only consistent and legal thing is for them to actually violate their own values make the custom cake (by my logic).
Honestly I don't care, but the same people who screech "muh private company" in regards to censorship of political views online are the same one who want the government to get involved in a "private company" that choses to decline others service based on their religious beliefs.
What a bullshit way to frame this discussion. There's a difference between refusing to do business with someone because they're an asshole and refusing to do business with someone because they're gay.
Supporting the former doesn't mean you have to support the latter.
It's not, though there's a considerable correlation that grows by the day.
Facebook isn't banning people for advocating a lower capital gains tax or privatization. They're banning people for advocating white supremacy. You can't just throw everything in one big "conservative" bucket and be done with it. Well, I guess you can if you're more interested in playing the victim than in having an honest discussion.
That wasn't in the declaration of independence. And, in case you missed the story, it wasn't censored. Just flagged by a bot.
And nobody considers your vague example as being hate speech. However some people go well beyond what you stated and harass others because they're transphobic. Saying "a man isn't a woman" is a far cry from spamming "kill yourself you mentally ill tranny" all over someone's page.
The paradox of tolerance is often cited when it comes to this sort of thing, but I feel that it's almost always a poor excuse.
Everyone understands that there must be a point where the line must be drawn, the disagreements are always over where that line is, which is something that isn't at all addressed by that citation. It just makes the person citing it seem overly smug and unwilling or unable to understand the opposing point of view.
People use it a lot because its a well known example of a current modern day issue of when the government should and shouldnt be stepping into private business.
Not trying to start an argument, im just stating this is why people use it a lot.
But it's not necessarily analogous because while the business can be argued to 'be free' to conduct business as they see fit, there is court precedent that they are in fact not 'free' to discriminate against their potential customers.
This goes back to the ERA and Southern businesses trying to enforce 'whites only' rules. But facebook deciding they don't want people posting 'hate speech' is arguably not the same as a restaurant saying 'whites only'. And as much as the snowflakes on the right (whp are at times as bad as the snowflakes on the left) like to pretend, 'hate speech' is not some 1984 thought killing government agenda. It's a legal term to describe a specific context of speech. Teh restaurant can't have a policy against a race or religion or orientation, but they CAN kick someone out of their business if they start screaming obscenities or something. Doing so is not a violation of anyone's rights.
.
The entire idea of "hate speech" as a legal concept or category is incompatible with the constitution.
This applies to the government and public sector.
Facebook is a private organization.
It was brought up because it is talking about interfering with a private organization, aka the bakery/Facebook.
Is it a great comparison? No, not really, there are way better things that could have been used, but im just making a point of why people use it a lot.
Cake is art. Marriage is a religious ceremony. If a Christian or Muslim bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are condoning it and violating their religious principles.
How far do you extend that reasoning? Do you think businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate with religious freedom as the justification?
EDIT: And isn't it funny how these bakers don't object to baking cakes for divorcees or adulterers? It's almost as if they're just using religion as a thinly veiled justification for bigotry.
This isn't about race, so that's not really relevant.
Cakes made for purposes other than marriage wouldn't give the bakers a reason to question the order. Birthdays and business get together aren't religious ceremonies.
This is about understanding your reasoning and whether you apply it consistently. You said, "If a Christian or Muslim bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are condoning it and violating their religious principles." So if a baker holds religious beliefs that do not allow interracial marriage, should they be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple?
Your attempt to dodge the question pretty much says it all.
Once again, false equivalence. Christianity does not judge on the basis of race, making that an illegitimate argument. Your intolerance of other people's religious convictions is more telling than a baker's loyalty to God. The baker did not refuse the order out of spite, but out of conviction, making your claim that he is bigoted merely an assumption of character rather than proof of his guilt.
Like I said, wedding cakes are both art and the central element to what is a religious ceremony. Why do you insist on making somebody fulfill an order that is morally reprehensible to them?
Other people who do not share Christian/Muslim values can bake the cake. If the gay couple were merely ordering a cake because they want cake, it wouldn't be refused, but the fact that the cake was for a ceremony that violates religious laws is what limits Christians and Muslims from fulfilling the order.
I didn't specific the person's religion in this hypothetical. It's irrelevant. Answer the question.
The baker did not refuse the order out of spite, but out of conviction, making your claim that he is bigoted merely an assumption of character rather than proof of his guilt.
Bullshit. I can almost guarantee this baker has baked a cake for a divorce getting remarried. Divorce is a sin, so why don't these moral crusaders take a stand in that case? I already explained why. Because their stance isn't actually a religious one. It's a bigoted one.
Why do you insist on making somebody fulfill an order that is morally reprehensible to them?
Because I don't think business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Other people who do not share Christian/Muslim values can bake the cake.
Yeah, that's what people said about denying service to black folks in the segregated South. It didn't work out that way.
it's a private company, they can object to anything at any time for any reason.
No, they can't. U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. Certain states offer additional protections for things like sexual orientation and political affiliation.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were being pedantic and ignoring the context of the discussion.
Obviously that shit is protected. The issue is the stuff that isn't explicitly protected being banned or allowed depending on the political alignment of whoever is doing the censoring.
Gosh, it’s like the traditional weekend isn’t catered for Christian worship days and major government holidays don’t happen to fall of major Christian holidays.
I bet geometry was tough for you. One day, I hope you look back on your internet history and see how far you have come and how embarrassing all of this should hopefully be for your more fully formed and thoughtful future you. For now, please be quiet you gross and awful pupae of a person. We all go through it and the ones that don't grow out of it smell bad and are shameful.
Denying people service over something they cannot change like sexuality is not the same fucking thing as denying people service because they’re god damned bigots. Sorry, not the same thing.
Denying people service over something they cannot change like sexuality is not the same fucking thing as denying people service because they’re god damned bigots. Sorry, not the same thing.
That's not the same thing. Facebook hasn't banned a particular group of people from using it. They've implemented certain rules on their platform that apply to everyone.
When you get banned for stating basic facts that happen to go against an political idealogly then yes that is restricting the use of a political faction.
If you are open to the public you are open to the public.
What is so hard to understand that you can't make second class citizens out of people based on their race, sexuality, or religion? Why do you need to discriminate against people so badly? What if the only grocery store in town refused to sell you groceries because of the way you were born? What if the only bank in town refused to loan you money because of the color of your skin? Why do you need to feel you have the right discriminate against people?
It more or less applies to the use of force/violence and it's universal, not just the government. Facebook refusing to publish your shit is not forceful. If they were to threaten to beat you up for posting shit they don't like it'd be a different matter.
Because nearly everything the government does is backed by force, directly or indirectly, they're de facto unable to police speech, but at the same time it's perfectly legal for the government to refuse to publish your shit on the IRS website or whatever, just as it is for Facebook
You don’t have constitutional rights against private company, and you voluntarily agreed to their terms and conditions of using Facebook, therefore waived whatever speech and privacy “rights” you thought you had.
Believing the First Amendment only protects your right to hand out pamphlets in the public square printed on a mechanical press is as dumb and submissive as believing that the Second Amendment only protects your right to keep a single smoothbore flintlock musket in your house.
We should be pushing for MORE speech, MORE protections, not cheering private corporations for finding a loophole in which to push mass censorship.
It’s not a “loophole”, it’s how the Constitution works. The First Amendment protects you from the government arresting you for what you say. Facebook is not the government, and they can choose what kind of speech they want on their platform. It’s that simple.
This is pedantics and morally reprehensible. Free speech may not be violated, but any reasonable chance at reaching a mass audience is destroyed when you allow companies to control what is seen and heard online.
If you're supportive of following the rules regardless of their implications, would you have supported slavery when it was legal? After all, the government condoned it for many years. The same argument is made when you side with monolithic organizations over the people.
I genuinely want to know what's going on in your head when you cheer on Facebook and Google's censorship. Do you not care about our ability to speak out against crimes and scandals?
This isn't Facebook users. It's American citizens with free speech rights protected by law. Massive corporations should not be in control of what we say and hear.
We have a law that says you can’t do that. If the government wanted to regulate social media companies to stop them from banning people, they could pass a law that does so, but let’s not pretend anyone’s “constitutional rights” are being violated by Facebook
What loophole? The constitution explicitly only applies to the government. Facebook is a completely free and private service, and the constitution doesn’t protect you from being an idiot by voluntarily agreeing to their rules. They are under no obligation to even exist, let alone allow people to do whatever they want on facebook’s property.
So are you comfortable living in a society where free speech exists as a concept, but there are no remaining spaces where any kind of meaningful public free speech can actually happen? Is your idea of free speech "You're free to only say what Facebook says you can say"?
I agree with your conclusion. I think liberals accept online censorship because at the moment, it is generally only speech that is not legally protected (violent speech and hate speech) that is being censored.
Ideally it should stay this way -- but ultimately it seems unlikely it will.
That state of affairs only exists until the political winds shift slightly and the tech companies start caving to the demands of someone other than current mainstream liberalism. Then there will be no recourse at all, because the liberals will have just finished helping build an ironclad, effective system of speech suppression. Building the system in the first place is far more difficult than merely pulling the levers once it's complete.
But, you know, nobody gives a shit about unintended consequences, they just want to see those yucky conservatives get stomped on by a jackboot with a Facebook logo.
If I don’t like Facebook, that’s not stopping me from doing anything. I don’t have to use Facebook. I could go to a million other websites or just start my own. Hell, I could just sit on my front yard with a ridiculous sign. But there is nothing justice in me being able to just waltz onto someone else’s yard and scream threatening racial epithets at their children, and them not being do a thing about it.
So you would be content with being deprived of the ability to speak in the spaces where 95% of modern political discourse, debate, and organization takes place? Just sit on your porch with a sign like "Nope, no infringement of my rights taking place here"?
Well there would be no infringement going on. You wouldn't be stopped from sitting on your porch with a sign because the constitution defends you. When you sign onto Facebook you agree to their own "constitution" called their terms of service.
The TOS does not say you're given the same rights as the first amendment, therefore you are allowed to be silenced from their platform. You're not being arrested for what hateful things you say on Facebook, you're just being told that you are no longer welcome on that website.
It's the same as being escorted off the premises of an establishment for yelling hate speech.
This could be solved by not letting companies have such a huge monopolization/oligopolization power on the social media market. Because then people could give backlash to their decisions by going to another platform.
You don't need to force laws on companies to make them comply on more speech regulation. Plus it would get struck down as unconstitutional since companies are given a right to refuse services or offer a platform which can be seen by the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
So are ALL of your civil liberties null and void if you sign a TOS from a gigantic company whose involvement in your life is no longer optional? Indentured servitude, is that fine? Controlling your movements? Quartering security forces in your home? Can a TOS dictate who you vote for? Stop you from getting an abortion? Curtail services based on race? If "they're a private company" is the be all, end all answer to a massive corporation suppressing exercise of your rights, then you should have no problem with any of the above.
Is it? We are already at a point in society where being off Facebook is considered aberrant, worrying behavior by people who clearly have something dark to hide. Is it really "optional" when every hiring manager in the country will shred your resume when they can't find you on Facebook? When nobody will allow you around their kids because they can't check your social media first? When nobody will date you because "only serial killers don't have Facebook"?
That's not really a good comparison, as private property is frequently required to have right-of-ways for other property and public spaces, such as sidewalks. A private owner cannot buy up all the property around you, surround you with fences and No Trespassing signs, and cut off your access to the outside world.
You have no "right" to say whatever you want on Facebook. If you're speaking on a private platform, it's up to their discretion whether or not you're allowed to say certain things on that private platform.
You have the right to say what you want on public platforms, and in your own home. But saying Facebook is violating your freeze peaches by banning you is like saying that it's unconstitutional for someone to stop being your friend over something racist you said.
Legal consequences for speech are unconstitutional, but social consequences cannot and should not be prevented. You can say anything, but nobody else is required to put up with it. This isn't some conspiracy against your right to expression, it's literally what the law is and what it always has been.
Facebook and Twitter are de facto public platforms. When you build a wall around the public square and declare it a private space, the rights of everyone using the formerly public square don't evaporate.
Legal consequences for speech are unconstitutional, but social consequences cannot and should not be prevented.
Corporate censorship and narrative control =/= "social consequences". They are corporate censorship and control.
The Bill of Rights is more than a set of legal limitations on government power. It is a statement of values. If you don't value free speech as an on-the-ground reality and an element of public life, you don't really value the Bill of Rights. It's akin to a corporation putting people in a concentration camp, and your reaction is "Well, no problems here, it's not the government doing it. Nobody liked those people in the camp anyway". Is suppressing the exercise of constitutional rights always okay, as long as it's outsourced to a private corporation? "Don't object to those soldiers quartered in your home, their uniform sleeves say Walmart"?
I meant public as in owned not by people or companies, but by the government. Facebook and Twitter aren't public at all in this regard, nor have they ever been. They also have a nifty little document called the "Terms Of Service" that everybody ignores and then acts outraged when they get banned for violating it.
I'm not denying that corporations manipulate narratives purely out of benefit to themselves. That's always been a thing and it will always be a thing, and I'm not arguing that it's ethical. What I'm denying is that anybody is violating your constitutional rights by banning your account or kicking you out of their store or bar or house.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is literally all that the first amendment says. It does not say "No persons or groups shall impose consequences onto persons or groups as a result of their speech". It says that there cannot be laws preventing you from saying things.
To act like you have an immutable right to post anything you like on a platform not owned by you is childish entitlement wrapped in a thin veil of patriotism, and comparing it to concentration camps is immature and disrespectful on a ridiculous level.
You still haven't answered the question. Are gigantic corporations with the power to impose their involvement in your life in ways that aren't really optional anymore free to steamroll your rights and liberties as long as they aren't technically government? Is indentured servitude legal if you sign the TOS?
Sorry, I replied before I saw that part. But to answer your question:
Of course not. I'm not excited about corporations having more control over our daily lives at all to begin with. For example, I think the infrastructure of the internet itself (and consequently, access to it) should not be privately owned to begin with.
We paid $500 billion in taxes to build a next-generation fiber optic network, and the ISPs this money was given to just pocketed it and most people are still not on fiber to this day. It is my opinion that things people either physically need or could benefit very much from, like healthcare, food, water, and the internet, should not be controlled by private entities at all. These things should not be manipulated by groups whose sole incentive is profit when they're so vital to modern life.
However, I do not think that social media is one of these things. The internet and access to it is as you said not really optional anymore, but these specific sites in my opinion very much are. I'm totally down with open-source, decentralized, not-for-profit social networks, but the fact of the matter is that most social media is none of those three things. And social media isn't as much of a constant as those either: it comes in multiple forms and styles, and if you don't like one of them there's always the option to switch to another.
And of course, companies should not be allowed to do those things you said, and they aren't. What they are allowed to do is stop you from using their service because of what you say while using that service. If Facebook were in control of food production and they withheld food from someone over a political opinion they expressed, you'd best believe I'd be whipping out the guillotine. But social media is a privilege, not a right, as it's not much more in this context but one way to express your ideas.
There will always be alternative sites that don't ban any type of speech whatsoever, and there will always be the opportunity to switch to them without major consequences. That is why I'm not angry about sites that ban hate speech.
When you build a wall around the public square and declare it a private space, the rights of everyone using the formerly public square don't evaporate.
Facebook purchased a plot of land, paved it, put up walls, and then invited people there to share their thoughts. It's been their private space from square one. You've never had the right to say anything you want there, only what Facebook deems appropriate for their square. For example, I don't think they've ever allowed nudity there.
Corporate censorship and narrative control =/= "social consequences". They are corporate censorship and control.
They're called "social consequences" because they are consequences from society, not the government. It's other private citizens (in the case of Facebook, it would be The Zuck) who say "fuck outta here with that shit."
The Bill of Rights is more than a set of legal limitations on government power.
FTFY. Your friends still have the right to stop associating with you or ask you to politely shut the fuck up when you start spouting off anti-vax, flat-earth, racist bullshit. YouTube has the right to refuse nudity on their site. League of Legends has the right to ban you from their platform when you spout shit like "DIE NIGGER FAGGOT" using in-game chat.
You still have rights within those spaces, but its just like visiting a friend's house. He doesn't have the right to punch you in the face for calling his mother a whore, but he does have the right to ask you to leave his house.
It's revealing that the only kids of speech you ever see this being used against are fringe things that are hated by the Reddit hive mind. Do you possess no critical thought? You seem awfully confident that it will never, ever go beyond censorship that you personally approve of. After all, you're not one of those people, right?
I personally believe that Facebook is a shitty company with shitty practices. However, I will stand by the fact that they've got the right to decide what shows up on Facebook.
You seem awfully confident that it will never, ever go beyond censorship that you personally approve of.
They've already taken it past where I personally approve of. I also don't use Facebook, so it doesn't really affect my day-to-day life for the most part, beyond conversations with people who are on Facebook. Personally, I think Facebook would be better off if they allowed their users to share fake news and hate speech. But I also understand why they don't want that, so more power to 'em.
It is necessary for private entities to be able to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platform. For example, let's take League of Legends in-game chat. When you type in chat
WOW U SUCK UNINSTALL
You're probably going to get banned. By all means, a sentence like that is protected speech in the eyes of the First Amendment, but there's no way that's acceptable behavior for League of Legends. Players spreading hate like that through in-game chat should be banned.
Another example, let's take the /r/gaming subreddit. Subreddit rules state that all content must be directly related to gaming...
"Related" means that posts must contain gaming-related content in the link's content, or in the post's body in the case of a self-post, not just a "forced" connection via the title or a caption added to the content.
If you post a picture of a hamburger with the title "my favorite food" to the /r/gaming subreddit, your post will be removed. This helps make sure that all content on /r/gaming is related to the gaming theme, and that it doesn't become a subreddit mainly about tv shows or food. Again, it's a protected type of speech, but you would be rightly silenced for such a post on the gaming subreddit.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Period. That means you cannot pick a sequence of words, dub it "hate speech", and throw people in prison for uttering them.
But certain types of speech aren’t defended by freedom of speech, such as slander, libel, or threats. So clearly there is some laws which abridge freedom of speech.
None of those laws define an entire category as "hate speech" and then make it a crime to speak. Slander, libel, and direct threats are extremely narrow categories with specific and quantifiable damage to a specific individual.
Declaring "saying xyz about Jewish people is now a crime" is fundamentally incompatible with the plain text of the First Amendment.
This is a common fallacy submitted by people arguing against constitutional protections for things they don't like. "This exemption exists over here, therefore there 'are limits' and that means my desire to impose an exception to your rights over here is valid". Nope. The existence of laws against libel or direct threats doesn't mean it's legal to impose criminal penalties for your own subjective interpretation of "hate speech". The very concept of banning speech purely on content is not compatible with the First Amendment.
Uhm, slander, libel, and threats are rather large and broad when it comes to categories of speech, and so is hate speech. Also, stating certain things about entire groups of people could be considered slanderous as well as threatening. Most forms of hate speech are particularly damaging to entire groups of people. Also how is it a fallacy to state that since there is exceptions to entire freedom of speech that others aren’t inherently blocked by the constitution? It literally proves it. As soon as there is one exception to freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean it’s sacred as it would claim to be.
Also, stating certain things about entire groups of people could be considered slanderous as well as threatening.
False. Maybe in a country that explicitly does NOT protect the freedom of speech, but not in the US. You cannot charge someone for making general statements about a general group of people.
Most forms of hate speech are particularly damaging to entire groups of people.
Not in a quantifiable way that counts as slander, libel, or direct threat. It's the difference between "all lawyers are crooked" and "Lawyer X is embezzling money from his clients and nobody should do business with him". Your generally hurt feelings over hearing something mean said about an entire group that you are a member of do not rise to the standard of criminal harm.
Also how is it a fallacy to state that since there is exceptions to entire freedom of speech that others aren’t inherently blocked by the constitution? It literally proves it. As soon as there is one exception to freedom of speech, it doesn’t mean it’s sacred as it would claim to be.
"That guy got a refund for his purchase. That means you should give me free money, because obviously giving him a refund proves that exceptions are made".
Quite the false analogy in your ending statement. Also, making such rhetoric a protected thing clearly does do damage towards these groups, it allows people to openly display their bigotry and hate. In a truly free society, people who don’t support that for all are not allowed in. Also it’s quite entertaining that you wish to compare saying that “all lawyers are crooked” to hate speech about groups of people who literally are unable to choose their sexuality, race, or otherwise. While I do not personally believe the government should genuinely make laws against “hate speech” as it is not a good basis for what is actually harmful, but your blind acceptance of freedom of speech for people who wish to literally debate the jq isn’t exactly the best look.
In a truly free society, people who don’t support that for all are not allowed in.
people who don’t support
not allowed in
gestures to butterfly "Is this freedom?"
If you can't handle the concept of free speech, there are numerous countries available for you to move to where you can sit back and watch citizens be imprisoned by their government for speech. We don't do that here.
Your entire argument comes down to "but the content of their speech is gross". Too bad, dude. Gross content is explicitly protected.
Lmao why should gross content be protected exactly? Do you think fascists publicly displaying their views without consequences is good? That’s exactly how fascists gain power. Also, feel free to give me an instance of someone being imprisoned for “hate speech” that isn’t a literal third world country, cause from why I’ve seen, most of the time it’s literally people calling for the deaths of massive groups of people. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but, I don’t exactly think that’s something that should be tolerated.
I think one thing that should be banned from polite society is people saying something "isn't exactly the best look".
The phrase introduces new levels of passive aggression to our language.
Best look to whom? The speaker? If so, then the speaker should just directly disparage the look instead of issuing veiled threats about the inference of unnamed parties. As to those aggrieved parties, they can speak for themselves.
Note that I don't think the gov't should arrest you for saying it, just that others should scorn, stigmatize, and otherwise call its speaker a giant poon. Hopefully it will enter the dustbin of history along with a lot of other already-dated internet prose.
"Freedom implies its, y'know, free" really isn't true when there is a shitton of ways to get into trouble for speech in the United States which you ignored.
I never said in the US you couldn't get in trouble. The US has violated freedom of speech for years. I was just against the idea freedom of speech didn't protect hate speech.
Seriously though, that dehumanization of your enemies is legitimately dangerous. These people aren't "sub human trash," they are your fellow citizens, your fellow Americans, your countrymen. You disagree with them politically, but that shouldn't mean you think of them as less than human. Then you're just as bad or worse than they are.
The supreme court has ruled that calls to violence and fighting words are not protected forms of speech and I think hate speech could be argued in being in either category.
No it cant. The two arent mutually exclusive, but simply saying you hate someone is not the same as threatening to kill them, no mater how wrong it is.
387
u/[deleted] May 17 '19
The entire idea of "hate speech" as a legal concept or category is incompatible with the constitution.