Welp, the movie was a nice break from the quarantine. Even the part where he attacked a partner at a recruiting dinner but whitemannedly still got an interview or whatever. Everyone joked that Adams was trying to look ugly to win an Oscar, but aside from the benders she looked like half the cheearleaders and volleyballers in 22-5A back in the '90s.
The idea of free speech isn't limited to the legal or constitutional context. As intelligent beings, we should all be for a robust free speech ideal.
It certainly isn't but it also has to be weighed with other principles too. In this case private businesses also have a right to make decision about what happens on their properties.
Well in the manner of making legal arguments and legislation yes, the constitutional application matters. The constitutional application is protection from government prosecution for speech. Tech companies can't prosecute you.
We do have a robust free speech idea. Are you advocating that people can whatever they want whenever they want too? Do you advocate doing away with slander laws?
Yes they do, that doesn't mean they cannot be criticized for not encouraging free speach. I didn't notice that the lance was labelled, to be honest. A Quixotic crusade with inappropriate weapons is at least thematic. Prosecution was not mentioned. I am not. I support free speech that has roughly the same restrictions the government allows under the 1st Amendment (no slander/libel, no threats of or calls for imminent unlawful violence, no false advertising, no fraud). I would just be in favor of platforms that allow all legal speech.
Your right to criticize business is protected under the First Amendment which protects your free speech. But if I understand your position correctly, you think any business entity should ignore protecting the business value for their shareholders (including employees) and allow any speech that might lower the value of that business value? Any other government takeover of commercial enterprise you support?
What do you think is more important. That they allow anyone to say anything or that they can decide what goes on their property? For example if I allow someone to hang out on my front yard and he starts yelling things that I and my neighbors might find offensive should I be criticized for then asking him to leave? Also do you think that is censorship?
I mean, when you consider that Don Quixote was mentally ill and could never accept the blame for any of his mistakes, and saw himself as a knight - you kind of do see a parallel to Trump.
Most of the things you noted are what gets people kicked of these major platforms. it's what got Trump kicked off, so I don't understand what your beef is.
I have never once seen you protest against the banning of members on clutchfans even though their speech was legal. So I am curious, does this only apply to certain platforms that are in the news?
I am aware of this. I think they can increase their business value by being robust protectors of free speech and open platforms. I made no argument for government takeover. I said I would be in favor of platforms allowing robust free speech. I never mentioned compulsion, state or otherwise. I would say having both rights is important, but that in terms of a speech platform (like twitter) as opposed to a residence, I would rather the default be to allow all speech. They are a private business, they can do what they want, but I am free to criticize them. Yes, preventing speech is always censorship. There may be good reason for it, but it is always censorship. Trump was not kicked off for illegal speech. Most people aren't. They are kicked off for offensive/hate speech. They are kicked off for saying unpopular things. That is my beef. I've never really noticed anyone getting banned. I don't support banning people. I don't even use my ignore feature. Like twitter, Clutch is free to ban people if he wants, but I would prefer more of a free for all. Because this is a moderated space, there may be more liability in leaving things up here, but that isn't really my area of expertise.
Point is that Clutch sets moderation rules just like any other site, board, or platform. Some platforms find it such a headache, that they eliminate all user comments (see NY Times). Many other platforms moderate as they choose what quotes from users get shared in articles, on TV, etc. We all have free speech, but the question remains - does that mean that the private sector is obligated to PUBLISH your speech? Because essentially that is what Twitter, FB, etc are. Publishing platforms. And what is google but content curation? People accuse Google of censoring content - but the very nature of curating content is to give some content a higher profile than others. Can Google exist as a business if it must give everyone an equal right to speak? You run into other problems - every company is a platform for employees to speak. Once you say the private industry can not censor people, then people can sue their employee for dismissal based on a censorship claim. "I was fired because they didn't want to give me my freedom to speech". If someone calls their boss a prick and writes nasty emails to clients, you would not be allowed to dismiss that person without violating their free speech. This is one reason why it's so difficult to fire gov't employees today. These kind of laws have a big risk of turning the US into a communist state where the gov't essentially will have to run all of the communication platforms to govern free speech laws. This isn't the FCC of the internet, it's literally big brother actively involved in private organization communication. That's the direction you move towards when you start saying the gov't should govern private entities communications.
