State of Speech

[Callate]

People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

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.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

The idea of Freedom of Speech does not begin and end with the First Amendment, even in the United States.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights were undoubtedly concerned both with what was feasible for a young and uncertain conglomeration of colonies to enforce and with not emulating the overreach they had experienced as a holding of the Britain. And they would struggle even with what it meant just within government, as the Alien and Sedition acts would attest.

But I find it difficult to believe that the intent was that "Freedom of Speech" would be protected only as long as plausible deniability could be established that the government wasn't responsible for quashing it. Agents provocateurs and "astroturf groups" have a history that far predates the coinage of the terms.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.

True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaults

OK. Obviously, someone was able to successfully derail this thread. So, let's try to get it back On Topic. In case you guys forgot, it is about corporate restrictions on speech.

I didnt forget, I just didn't want to let those statements stand.
But okay, let's talk about speech. It's not hypocritical to criticise corporations to punish their employees for their speech. The corporations have the right to employ whoever they want, and I have the right to call them cowards for punishing someone for calling our shitty president a white supremacist. Speech is doing great in this country because we all can say what we want, and that includes criticising other people's speech. The most hypocritical thing to me is to claim someone is attacking one's right to speech when they are attacking the speech itself
there, I solved it

This pretty much. People often seem to forget that you can object for reasons other than free speech. Free speech or no, if someone fired someone for say supporting gay rights then I'd think they're a massive asshole for being against gay rights

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

People here have misinterpreted "Free Speech" to no end.

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.

So no, nobody's obligated to give you a platform, and nobody has to put up with what you say, the government just can't stop you from saying things.
Notable exceptions: Things like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. You're not making a statement, you're just flagrantly endangering people. As such it's recognized as a crime.

The idea of Freedom of Speech does not begin and end with the First Amendment, even in the United States.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights were undoubtedly concerned both with what was feasible for a young and uncertain conglomeration of colonies to enforce and with not emulating the overreach they had experienced as a holding of the Britain. And they would struggle even with what it meant just within government, as the Alien and Sedition acts would attest.

But I find it difficult to believe that the intent was that "Freedom of Speech" would be protected only as long as plausible deniability could be established that the government wasn't responsible for quashing it. Agents provocateurs and "astroturf groups" have a history that far predates the coinage of the terms.

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

 

[EternallyBored]

This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

 

[KissingSunlight]

This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences? Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so. Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

 

[Avnger]

Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences?

Depends on the corporate interference involved. Is a corporation having someone following you around and blowing an air horn anytime you open your mouth? That would be a pretty easy case to get, at the very least, a restraining order from a judge. Is the corporation telling you that you don't get to use their personal property to espouse your ideas from? You're not going to get shit and for good reason; you, me, all people, and all corporations have the right to kick guests off of our property if they break the standards that we established when they entered. If someone shows up at a party at your house and starts doing nothing but screaming racist obscenities towards your other guests, you would immediately show them the door. A corporation has those exact same rights for their property.

Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so.

This sounds like you're complaining that the contract has terms to it... You don't have a right to be employed at any particular company or even at all. If this is something you are really upset about, why aren't you against companies stipulating restrictions on the amount that you earn while working there (aka a salary)? I mean if I refuse to sign a contract regarding my free market worth, I wouldn't be employed there either.

Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

It doesn't matter. Those internet platforms are private property of the individual or group that owns, operates, and pays for them. If you want a platform that has an agreement which matches your exact wishes, you can either create one yourself or sign a contract with someone to create one.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Its called balance cause the government IS working to get people fired from their jobs in the US. Whether its by denying protections for LGBT people, or Trump literally calling for the NFL to fire people who do not conform to Trump.

Never heard of "Not descending to their level"? Working to get someone fired because you disagree with them is a genuinely shitty thing to do and marks everyone involved as a terrible person.

Not going to their level leaves Nazis and bigots in control of everything.

Kind of like when only bad guys kill, you end up with all the good guys dead.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster."

And I don't seem to recall Ghandi ending up dead. Until old age, that is. No, if you resort to the tactics of the bad guys you lose all claim to the moral high ground.

While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.

Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground

Damned right you do. I only pointed out Ghandi was assassinated because it seemed pertinent to differentiate dying of old age and just being old when you die. Fascinating man, bit strange but very fascinating.

 

[EternallyBored]

This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.

The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.

The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.

For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.

Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences? Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so. Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?

My post was mostly about how the ability to enter into a contract is enshrined as a fundamental right in a free capitalist society, specifically in the US at least, and that changing that in any major way is probably about as easy as changing public speech laws. So Drathnoxis complaint, while it has its merits, is at least as complex a topic as free speech protecting us from the government.

Basically, what I mean, is that the right to restrict bahvior through mutual contract agreement is at least as hard to change on a governmental level as any sort of other change to rights, it?s possible to offer certain protections or regulations if what one party is demanding is too onerous, like how you can?t actually enter in to a contract that would require grievous bodily harm or force you to say things that are dangerous to public safety, and a contract can be unenforceable for various reasons like the aforementioned whistleblower protections.

The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.

Your last line about public Internet forums and codes of conduct is a whole different thing that gets into services versus products and is more about legal ass covering than formalized contract law, like for example, the conduct clauses in a professional sports stars contract, or an NDA in an actor?s contract. Public codes of conduct are on shaky ground legally kind of like EULA?s without court precedence it?s unknown exactly how far something like a website could take a code of conduct.

 

[Drathnoxis]

The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you wanted me to go on.

Basically, as you said, corporations have so much power because of their money and NDAs take away one of the few options people have to redress the balance. One of the common ways I've heard of NDAs being used is that a major corporation will wrong an individual through massive negligence, and the individual will sue them. The corporation will then offer to settle out of court with an NDA being one of the terms. The individual is then left with the option of a long, drawn out legal battle they can't afford with an entity that has unlimited funds or a bit of money for their silence. Most people will take the money, but that isn't justice. The company isn't receiving appropriate retribution for their crimes, the legal precedents are never being set because it doesn't make it through court, and the public is never notified about the transgressions because of the NDA. That last point is the worst thing because the public should be entitled to know about that sort of thing, but nobody who knows is allowed to tell them. So the companies are allowed to go along, trampling whoever get in the way under their feet and never even have to worry about their reputation being tried in the court of public opinion.

I'm not a fan of use of NDAs in employment contracts either. I can see some value to them in certain cases, but it goes along with signing away your right to intellectual property you create (even in your spare time) and non competition clauses to really erode your rights as an individual and ensure that nobody is able to get out from under the thumb of a major corporation.

Edit: Also wasn't this thread in the WW? I could have swore it was.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem is that in thunderf00t case he said legitimate opinions (at least back then) and the answer was to attempt to destroy his life. There's not a lot of point of being able to express your opinion if people can destroy your life afterwards.

The "attempt to destroy his life" we're talking about, here, took the form of criticism, though. What's the alternative? That he can say what he likes (and with an enormous platform provided by his employer), but that critics may not, even without that same platform?

And it raises the philosphical question: Does not expressively forbidding something means actively encouraging people to act in this way? Which can be a thread in itself.

It means allowing it to occur. It is widely recognised that the government's accepted role includes preventing certain harmful behaviours. That usually includes severe or damaging discrimination.

 

[Callate]

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

Sorry if that was not clear.

If prohibiting the free exercise of speech is an action only the government is supposed to be prevented from undertaking, then all an agent of a government needs to do to continue to hinder free speech is make sure that it isn't recognized that it's the government that is doing so.

As when an agent provocateur infiltrates a group and provokes violence at a protest to justify a broader legal crackdown against said group, or an official anonymously organizes or arranges funding of an "astroturf group" to lobby for or against issues or persons in a way the official him- or her-self cannot be seen to advocate.

If speech is supposed to be protected from suppression on a broader scale, whether legally or just as a practical and ethical standard, then even if the person(s) suppressing that speech cannot be proven to be working for the government, the act is still wrong.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?

Sorry if that was not clear.

If prohibiting the free exercise of speech is an action only the government is supposed to be prevented from undertaking, then all an agent of a government needs to do to continue to hinder free speech is make sure that it isn't recognized that it's the government that is doing so.

As when an agent provocateur infiltrates a group and provokes violence at a protest to justify a broader legal crackdown against said group, or an official anonymously organizes or arranges funding of an "astroturf group" to lobby for or against issues or persons in a way the official him- or her-self cannot be seen to advocate.

If speech is supposed to be protected from suppression on a broader scale, whether legally or just as a practical and ethical standard, then even if the person(s) suppressing that speech cannot be proven to be working for the government, the act is still wrong.

Well except depending on how broad you want that then you're denying private entities other rights out of fear of who they might be. Private entities should not be constrained the same way that the government should. I should not, for example, not be allowed to kick someone off my property because I dislike the shit they say, regardless of if someone decides that's 'suppressing speech'. Generally speaking... I should not be forced to give leeway to people for fear that I'm secretly the government and I'm suppressing their speech

Also, the examples you gave aren't really suppressing speech... they're framing someone or just secretly funding certain speech

 

[Callate]

Well except depending on how broad you want that then you're denying private entities other rights out of fear of who they might be. Private entities should not be constrained the same way that the government should. I should not, for example, not be allowed to kick someone off my property because I dislike the shit they say, regardless of if someone decides that's 'suppressing speech'. Generally speaking... I should not be forced to give leeway to people for fear that I'm secretly the government and I'm suppressing their speech

Also, the examples you gave aren't really suppressing speech... they're framing someone or just secretly funding certain speech

I'm not sure that I see how associating members, and especially leaders, of a group with illegal acts isn't a suppression of speech. At best it costs them time and attention that might otherwise be spent towards the group's goals; at worst, it costs money for a legal defense, puts members of that group in legal jeopardy that could see them fined or imprisoned, and casts a negative association in the minds of observers that may not be easily allayed, even if the sabotage is later unearthed.

As for the latter, it varies; groups like the Moral Majority and the PMRC of the 1980s had a significant role in attempting to stifle or censor media that they found "harmful to children" or "detrimental to family values".

There's an increasingly uneasy question as an increasing number of "public" venues are actually privately owned- whether it's the bandwidth infrastructure purchased by an Internet provider or a privately owned company that happens to hold a de facto monopoly in certain areas of discourse- say, Google, Facebook, Youtube, Patreon- whether the boundaries of the ability to speak and be heard or be silenced or suppressed- are so easily drawn.

 

[man2man]

I think free speech is important, but we have to imprison people that say things that are intolerant.

We have seen what happened in germany in 1933 when free speech went too far.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

"Free Speech" is a dogwhistle for fools.

For starters, it's a manufactured virtue because as soon as a foreigner leaks documents as to military actions they want to throw them in prison despite not breaking any laws in the country of residence... Or how about imprisoning communists? Or how about government threats to MLK?

The U.S. has never had "free speech" as American idiots pretend they have. It's the country that invented the Espionage Act of 1917 which imprisoned people for saying the U.S. shouldn't treat the successful revolution in Russia as an enemy of the state.

I have greater liberties about what I say in Australia as opposed to what the U.S. government would otherwise push for my extradition if I do.

"Free speech" is dog whistling for idiots who pretend like being anything less than an offensive **** to people is somehow being in transgression of it. You know, ignoring the fact that when people say something meaningful the president renounces their press pass at the White House. Or somehow an Australian publishing papers they received from sources online of government activities is a 'criminal' act (somehow).

Free speech should mean a government can't push to extradite, and throw you in jail, or shoot you for simply what you say. The U.S. is outrightly the worst offender of the Western world of this very basic concept in both the 20th and 21st century.

After all... Pompeo's excuse to have Assange extradited was precisely the fact that he was a foreigner, therefore had no rights of free speech (albeit ignoring that countries he were in do have protections and it was not considered a crime) ... so that's precisely how much they really don't give a shit.

So hey, U.S. "free speech" ... don't be a foreigner and don't say nasty things about the U.S. or publish documents of various atrocities they get up to... or else you get a predator drone enema or black bagged by the CIA.

Glad to see no shortage of idiots thinking free speech begins or ends at you simply have the capacity to be a **** wherever you like, yet pretending ordinary people should have to put up with that without cost to your social esteem, your paycheque, or your eligibility to be somewhere.

If you think that's "free speech" you're a fucking idiot.