Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smsm42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The point is that there are no laws in the United States that demand private forums have any semblance of "free speech".

Since when the only requirement from people to behave decently is that they are forced to do it by the threat of violence from the government? Can't we ask people not to be jerks without threatening them with jail?

> It's a legal concept, not a societal one

Nope, it is a societal one. Legal one follows from that. Laws are created by society, they are not some independent reality that exists by itself. Laws about free speech exist because society values free speech, if it didn't, such laws won't exist - and indeed, societies that do not value such concepts don't have such laws.

> Free speech is a legal term.

Nope again. There is a legal term "free speech", but claiming that's all there is is switching the cause and effect. We value free speech not because we are forced by the laws, given us by Gods. We create laws valuing free speech because we think free speech is a good idea, required for well-functioning society.

> But as is, Paypal has nothing to do with free speech

They have tons to do with free speech - they try to use their power as a major payment provider in order to limit it and suppress people that speak in ways they do not approve of. Of course, their power is not absolute and is no match for the vast powers of the government - but that does not make such use of their power, whatever they have, any less despicable. Maybe less dangerous, yes, but there's no rule that we should only address the very largest threat and completely ignore the lesser ones.

> Otherwise it just comes across as if you don't know what free speech is

No, I know what "free speech" is. That's exactly why I am tired of reducing the concept to bare legalese. It never was that, it is not that, and it will never be that.

> just correcting your improper use of the term

By that revealing that they do not understand the term and have faulty understanding of why we have all these laws at all.

We can always ask people to not be jerks. Free speech is indeed a societal concept. In the context of This conversation on this subject however, it is a legal one. We are asking what Paypal should do. Paypal is a corporation. They should do whatever benefits them and their shareholders the most. They are currently doing that. Even if you don't agree morally, that is what they are doing. Therefore, our societal definition of free speech does not match with our legal one.

Thus we must change our legal one. Therefore, I claim that our conversation is implicitly and inherently about the legal definition of free speech and what that should be. Paypal has no obligation, no requirement to do anything unless the law is changed accordingly. Otherwise they will continue to operate in the way that benefits them and their shareholders the most.

My point was simply that you're not explictly asking to change the law when you should be. As the law is currently written Paypal is doing everything right. If that is still wrong for a moral and societal perspective, how do we change the laws to match? Specifically, how do you change the laws in a way that upholds our previous decisions and court cases because these have served as bedrock principles.

I wasn't attacking you mate, my bad - just trying to get you to be more specific.

> We can always ask people to not be jerks.

That's what is being asked from paypal now. And the response is "they are not the government, so by law they can be jerks". Well, duh. That's not the point!

> In the context of This conversation on this subject however, it is a legal one.

Nope, it isn't. It only is because some misguided people want to make it one. That's exactly what I am tired of - of trying to reduce each discussion about norms into "it's legal therefore it's ok". Nope, nope and nope.

> Thus we must change our legal one.

Terrible idea. Enforcing decency by legislation has always backfired, and trying to reduce societal norms to bare "would you get in jail for this?" never worked well. There are more to society than jails, and there is more to improving society than governmental violence.

> My point was simply that you're not explictly asking to change the law when you should be

And my point you are approaching it wrong, and the law is the least of the issues here. That's the whole point. Regulating such things by the law is the worst idea ever. It would backfire and hurt the very people it purports to protect, and all around them too.

> As the law is currently written Paypal is doing everything right.

Paypal is going everything legal, but not right. These are different things, and they always will be. The law only defines what is so egregiously wrong that you deserve to be hurt if you are doing that. It will never define what is right. Its our job, as a society. We can't just put it on a bunch of lawyers and be done with it.

The issue is that large corporations like these don't care about norms or morals. They only care about the law because as a collective they can shift any moral responsibility into ambiguity.

No duder at paypal thinks they're morally responsible for this decision. My point is that because Paypal is a company whose only goal is to make money, lecturing them on morals is pointless. If you want to impose your morals on them, the only way to do so is legislation (impose is a strong word here sorry).

In other words, you're wasting your breath because Paypal doesn't care about morality or norms. We must restrict them via legislation that matches our societal values.

> Enforcing decency by legislation has always backfired

Murder? Rape? These are crimes whose very existence is to enforce decency via legislation. The social norms come first I agree, but you need the law to help prevent morally reprehensible behavior. That's kind of one of its main purposes.

I agree we must have a conversation of morals first and legality later, but the legal conversation needs to actually happen. And until it does, no large corporate entity will care.

> The issue is that large corporations like these don't care about norms or morals

Literally every PR message of every large corporation lately says the opposite. Even if they were all liars, why would they all lie about the same things if not because it is aligned with norms and morals?

> lecturing them on morals is pointless

This is not true, companies are regularly lectured on morality, and often successfully. E.g. just recently several providers were induced to sever ties with a nazi website, for moral reasons. There are numerous other cases, of course, and people are getting fired for moral reasons all the time.

> Murder? Rape?

Murder and rape are way beyond just decency. Those are exactly the things that "if you do them, you deserve to be hurt, badly". The government is good at enforcing those. It is not good at enforcing things that needs to be handled in more complicated ways, like finding proper society norms of behavior and enforcing them. As you probably understand, "at least he doesn't murder or rape anyone" is not really a definition of a good person, there's a bit more to it than that.

> The social norms come first I agree, but you need the law to help prevent morally reprehensible behavior

Do you? So, if you leave a small tip or don't smile back when somebody greets you, or don't hold the door for somebody when they walk behind you, you should go to jail? I think even North Korea doesn't go that far. With this approach, your ideal world would out-totalitarian the most totalitarian regimes known to humanity.

> And until it does, no large corporate entity will care.

As I said, this is demonstrably false. Moreover, there exist many successful organizations that has been and continue to demonstrate it being false every day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com