Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by iratewizard 2179 days ago
Wouldn't it be crazy if mega corporations could be used as tools to circumvent the first amendment? If Visa could tell Stripe who they're allowed to do business with when people in power get a little worried about what's being said?

And when did the first amendment stop protecting (some) dehumanizing speech? It definitely still protects dehumanizing progressive speech. How long before we have a list of types of speech no longer covered by free speech. How long until what I'm saying now is no longer covered?
2 comments
rickbutton 2179 days ago
You didn't read a single thing I said. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't.

If you want to grab a megaphone and spew white-supremacist garbage from your drive way then feel free, the government cannot, and should not, stop you. However, if your neighbors refuse to interact with you, that's your own fault. The megaphone seller also has the right not to sell you the megaphone if they don't want you to spew said garbage using their megaphone. Not once in that scenario does free speech apply.

link
jturpin 2178 days ago
> The first amendment does not grant you the right to a platform. It simply doesn't.

This feels a little hand-wavy: in the past there have been "designated free speech zones" that are of course critized organizations like the ACLU as a form of censorship and denying free speech. I don't think it's too crazy to say that speech without a platform isn't speech at all. I'm not saying we should force sites to accept content they don't like but we are going to have to address the privatization of speech sooner rather than later.

link
rickbutton 2178 days ago
I agree that we will have to address the privatization of speech at some point. Ultimately I'm not sure where my opinions lie on that spectrum.

However, I find it challenging to have to continuously fight white supremacist ideas on platforms, especially considering the --vast-- amount of violence and brutality inflicted on the oppressed for hundreds of years.

Should we have a debate at some point about whether the privatization of platforms has become a bad thing? Sure. Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people? No. We are losing the forest for the trees. Lives are lost every day because white supremacy continues to be pervasive in America. Allowing white supremacists a platform while not solving that problem is saying that the oppressed's right to live is less important than the white supremacist's right to speech. I simply don't agree with that.

link
CryptoPunk 2178 days ago
>>Should we do it -now-, while white supremacists actively use their platforms to incite hate and violence against black and brown people?

Did the banned individuals ever do this? I would be shocked of Stefan Molyneux has ever been recorded advocating violence against persons of color.

Or is he just collateral damage in the campaign to stop those inciting violence?

link
txsoftwaredev 2179 days ago
Payment companies are being used to block citizens access to firearms granted under the 2nd amendment.

PayPal for example: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E...

link