|
Added Space posted:
Which is in turn a strawman since, once again, that isn't what free speech protects. People on the internet seem to believe that there should be no consequences for what they say, which isn't helpful or part of a free exchange of ideas. The key to free speech is limitation on prior restraint, which is to say that you shouldn't be prevented from speaking based on what you might say. But in many of the cases of someone losing a platform on the internet or in real life they've had the opportunity to speak many times; what they say and how they say it is very well established. Twitter isn't restricting a free exchange of ideas for getting rid of Milo Yianopolos any more than the government would be restricting the free exchange of ideas by telling you you can't call your ex at three in the morning to drunkenly threaten them. You have to stand behind your words, which can be tough when your words exist to incite an angry mob.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
There's quite a bit of talking past each other on this point. People who are advocates of free speech find some recent behavior, such as Twitter throttling some political content or Facebook blocking news from certain websites, to be contrary to the ideals of a free and open exchange of ideas. The response is typically "Free Speech only means the First Amendment and that doesn't apply to private companies!" While this is correct, it's also a strawman since the principles of free speech extend beyond its specific mention in the American constitution. People are not arguing that Google can't try to financially strangle political viewpoints it doesn't like, but that it shouldn't in order to preserve an open exchange of ideas.
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:19 |
|