[wand3r]

Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace terrorists to less visible places.

I hope this is not greed, because these companies are about as well funded as they are unconnected/innocent in this incident.

[0] added "provide a platform for" free speech for clarity.

Also, I am aware these platforms moderate, Facebook just committed to hiring 1400ish people to mod the site.

[Kattywumpus]

They're not being sued for providing a platform for free speech; they're being sued for providing material support to terrorists. Maybe it's impossible to do one without doing both, maybe it isn't. I don't know. Maybe it's just unprofitable.

If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.

[notyourwork]

> If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.

The way this is phrased really changed my perspective on this. Thanks.

[wand3r]

I am the original comment poster and this is a very disingenuous way to frame my argument. If the above comment influenced you please consider:

- we have a legal framework for punishing law breakers. If these killers were affecting a political message (e.g. anti-US ideals like freedom, safety) our society has police and judicial means to extract "payment" or prevent this.

- At the civil level if someone/an entity is responsible for stripping civil liberties (this case through murder) I think we must draw a reasonable line. I don't have FB and am concerned w/ Google's privacy policies; however; to pretend a platform provided material support is absurd. Where does it end? Did googling weapons, posting pro-ISIS rants; a search interface and messaging/social network really count? This is reductionist?

- Consider this precedent and then why not sue Verizon for providing the data / internet and phone connectivity? What about Apple or Toshiba for the phone and hardware?

- I see this incident as a mental health issue, that is the underlying cause-- in my opinion.

- There really isn't a "price" for freedom or human life. No amount of money would likely convince me to give up my life. The responsible party is dead, so justice doesn't feel dispensed. Financially, they may be entitled to the estate assets.

- There is a degree of unfairness. Teaching tolerance and treating mental and health issues can help avoid this. This is a tradgedy, the family is likely to have damages >a million dollars (although there is no substitute for a human life) but we can't arbitrarily transfer those costs to a non-complicit party.

TL;DR I am glad you are open to changes in perspective; my comments are my opinion (as is the parent) but that framing struck me as reductionist and a bit of a disingenuous stawman. There are no easy answers unfortunately

[nappy]

Do you think corporations have the right to free speech? Do you think they ought to?

[acchow]

This isn't about a corporation's free speech. It's about people exercising their free speech using products built by companies.

[nappy]

A corporation spending money to host and spread speech in order to make a profit.

[bduerst]

Ironic considering a for-profit organization is paying to host and spread your speech right there.

[nappy]

I suspect if a user began to promote and recruit for ISIL on HN that they would be banned.

[bduerst]

So then your problem is with censorship, and not for profit organizations paying to host speech? Nice mobile goalposts.

[nappy]

And one that employs a paid moderation team...

[mgkimsal]

would you feel radically different if they were suing multiple non-profit/charitable sites that hosted discussion forums and provided communication platforms where this stuff took place?

[GauntletWizard]

Yes. Anything that a person would be able to say, a group of people should be allowed to get together to say. The much-maligned "Corporate Personhood" is a founding principal of pretty much all of US law, in that it defines a corporation as simply being a proxy for all of it's members.

There are plenty of places where Corporations should currently be being prosecuted for fraud and false advertising. These are places where the people behind them would and should be just as liable for those things (and judges should pierce the corporate veil to prosecute those responsible). This is not those times.

[gumby]

I read that as the free speech of others, not the "speech" of the companies.

The whole "companies are people" is nonsense. They are simply machines like any other human invention, and can't reasonably be held to have objectives or speech of their own any more than an automobile can.

[wand3r]

I edited for clarity

[aub3bhat]

Corporations have a right to free speech, and it has been affirmed many many many times by Supreme Court.