Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamamp | Hacker News Reader

I disagree that this is an encroachment on free speech. Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. The government is not allowed to silence you on most things you say. However, things like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (the age-old example) are not free speech. Moreover, Facebook is not the government and does not need to allow you to say anything you want.

People who would otherwise post on Facebook about Holocaust denial can go out on the streets and talk about it to their friends or others. But, they can expect a punch in the face if they do. I think that is what is happening here. People are spewing nonsense, and a non-governmental entity (Facebook) is punching them in the face (not letting them say it on their platform).

Like the grandparent post said, this is intolerant. But it's following the paradox to allow more tolerance in society.

View on HN

Our first amendment rights in the US restrict the government from prohibiting free speech. But that doesn't mean free speech isn't a principle that can, and should, be applied in other areas of life. When people say Facebook is violating free speech, that absolutely makes sense as a violation of a principle that many of us care strongly about, and that our society is to a great extent founded upon. Just because free speech as a right is enshrined in the first amendment doesn't mean the first amendment is where the principle of free speech begins and ends.

My goodness, "Free Speech" whatever HN folks imagine it to be does not mean you get to use FB's infrastructure to disseminate it.

Basically. Forcing them to disseminate it infringes Facebook's freedom of the press. Or freedom of association; there are arguments to be made in both directions.

Not really. You would think in a forum full of techbros, FB being a private entity would be the end of the discussion. But because it's white supremacist viewpoints that many of the forum users are sympathetic with, it gets moved into a conveniently gray area.

This accusation is severely dishonest and in bad taste. It is a character attack when substantial discussion is warranted. It allows you to undermine opposing viewpoints without examining them. You're accusing people of abandoning their stated principles for nefarious reasons. It is toxic. If you want to have productive discussions with people you'll be better off not labelling them as evil from the outset.

I do suspect it's confusing to refer to something our constitution calls a "right" and another thing, which is merely a "principle," by the same name.

But the utility of it on other areas of life is up for debate. The US considers the question settled for government intervention, not for private actions.

Free speech doesn't protect my right to blare Nazi propaganda 24/7 into your living room using focused sound technology. Nor should it.

In the US, it doesn't even grant a person the "right" to blare Nazi propaganda 24/7 using a licensed FM radio station.

Many people seem to take as granted that free speech is a virtue that an entity like Facebook should support, but their statements assume without evidence that free speech protection is a virtue in that context.

>Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_.

This is a common argument but it is simply not true. Someone cannot tape your mouth shut because they aren't the government. The government (at least the US government) is saddled with the responsibility to protect your rights, even from other entities. I cannot search your house just because I'm not a cop. What good is a government if it only protects your rights from being infringed by itself?

With regard to the particular topic being discussed, that is, a private entity moderating speech on its own property, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama is very directly applicable, and more specific to the situation itself. The only sticking point to be hashed out might be "terms of service" which might constitute a private agreement and this precedent may not directly apply. Of course we shall see, because I'm willing to bet these cases will be brought to court within the next 5 years.

There's a difference between "free speech" as a set of ideals and "free speech" as a legal right in the American constitution. When people criticize social network censorship, they're usually talking about the former, and they're usually not concerned about holocaust deniers in particular, but the slippery-slope precedent that these kinds of behaviors set.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com