Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thaumaturgy 2865 days ago
As a fellow Democrat, I'm deeply disappointed to hear this. First, it's not a conservative argument in favor of free speech, because their criticisms of limits to free speech are limited to speech that they support.

Second, the first amendment is clearly and unambiguously intended to protect the right to free speech from governmental interference. There are myriad outlets for speech, and as long as that continues to be the case, you can't just handwave something like "corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech". Argue from facts, not ideology: show that it's actually happening.

Further, there is no argument for making Twitter, Google, Facebook, CloudFlare, or any other company into a public utility that wouldn't also apply to Fox News, Clear Channel, or the Drudge Report, and compel them to publish liberal views.

Alex Jones is facing backlash from these companies not because of his reprehensible politics, but because he has been inciting violence against other people and these companies, finally, are taking some responsibility for their role in that. Maybe when he finally stops trying to convince people to go after the families of Sandy Hook victims or "investigate" pizza shops, he'll be let back onto the playground to play with the other kids.
1 comments
Veelox 2864 days ago
>right to free speech from governmental interference

I don't like where this argument goes. Do you think it should be legal for Google to remove every search result of a cannabis business? Should it have been legal for Google to censer anyone advocating for LGBT rights before they were a protected class? If you answer no to those questions its hard to justify saying that 1A only applies to the government.

link
thaumaturgy 2864 days ago
Answer to both was yes, even before I got to your last sentence.

That's not a statement that I think either of those things is right. I would and should expect a lot of user and community backlash from actions like those.

But as far as the law is concerned, those things should be legal. Again, because to do otherwise would mean forcing businesses to adopt the government's position on any number of subjects.

And no, I'm not a free-market libertarian. There are lots of things I think businesses should be forced to do under strong regulatory terms. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

link