[ilikehurdles]

> the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter

Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store. Free and accessible doesn't and shouldn't mean that you get to hold the platform for ransom with your content. That is, Twitter shouldn't be chained to indefinitely dedicating hosting specifically for any one kind of unpopular content.

Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise. You, a member of the open web, not being permitted to choose what content belongs on your own website just defeats the purpose of any kind of experiment of free expression online. A government telling you that you must always carry this or that particular view is totally antithetical to the First Amendment that establishes the Freedom of Speech.

Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech would not have been impeded _at all_, no matter how many hosts or bans or jobs you go through.

If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic, Orwellian regime that would force audiences to listen to those views.

[heartbeats]

Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

If you're saying that you're not physically prevented from saying whatever you'd like, but with that being the limit, it seems like just about any infringement becomes acceptable.

> Being put to death by the government has not prevented you from sharing those statements.

[ilikehurdles]

No. I'm specifically calling out that the government is not impeding. Other private actors are sharing bad things you did and exercising their Freedom of Association to disassociate from you. They shouldn't be forced to carry you around. That's it. It's the free market deciding.

All speech has consequences. You, the free speech enthusiast, not being prepared to pay those consequences is not cause for a government bailout or arrests of website hosts.

[tristor]

> No. I'm specifically calling out that the government is not impeding.

Ah, you are making the same claim (and thus mistake) as another commenter in another thread I responded to. Freedom of speech is not just a law, it is also a social more. It's basis is first in philosophy, and then in law stemming from that. Just because the government has not violated your First Amendment civil rights, does not mean your freedom of speech has not been violated in some other way.

[heartbeats]

If all speech has consequences, and there's nothing wrong with putting consequences to speech, what's wrong with the government doing so?

[ilikehurdles]

Well you can't reasonably opt-in or opt-out of a government, and you can't do much to change it if your saying you want a change lands you in jail for criminal speech. You can't freely associate to spread your message or convince others. If on the other hand, the government protects your speech from its own intervention, and you have a popular view that is unwelcome on some website like twitter, you're still able to freely associate with other sympathetic people, build an audience, and discuss your views elsewhere. The consequence in one scenario is jail and in the other is having to use or build Gab.

[heartbeats]

But is there anything morally wrong with it? Does it inhibit freedom of speech to execute people for criticizing the government? If so, how?

[Volundr]

> Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

Losing my friends over calling them assholes definitely dissuades me from doing so in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

See how nonsensical that is? Just because something makes you less likely to speak your mind doesn't mean it's impeding your freedoms. You have the freedoms to call your friends assholes. They have the freedom not to associate with you anymore (this is called freedom of association, and is part of freedom of speech). That freedom of association is the same freedom your employer is exercising when you make a racist joke and then fire you. You had the freedom to make the joke, they had the freedom not to associate with you after you did. No ones freedoms were limited.

[heartbeats]

Does freedom of association give my employer the right to fire me because I'm black? Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

[ilikehurdles]

Is there a point to any of these ridiculous questions? Do you remember what the argument was about?

Are you implying that black people choose to be black like someone saying racist, firable things at work chooses to say those things?

[heartbeats]

Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association.

If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"?

If it's about someone making statements at work, would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?

[ilikehurdles]

Why are you advocating for a world where you’re never held to account for your misdeeds (so long as you can link them to some form of speech)? Why do you believe everyone should be required to tolerate you for being vile to others?

[tristor]

> Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

I don't think there is an obvious answer here. We're in the realm of philosophy. My response to the grandparent was less about my own advocacy for freedom of speech (although that is clearly my position/bias) and more about their statements being disingenuous.

What my own personal opinion is as to the answer to your questions is pretty simple though. Twitter, like other social media "publishers", enjoys special legal status under the law via [0]Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. As such, they themselves do not have freedom of speech, they must not interfere with the content of the creators who use their platform. Interfering with that content (in theory) loses them that special legal status and opens them up to liability for the content they do choose to retain/host. So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

> If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store.

See above. "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers to maintain liability immunity, which Twitter does. That's setting aside the separate argumentation point which is that corporations are not people and corporate personhood is a sham, and therefore corporations themselves do not fundamentally have freedom of speech.

> Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise.

Please elaborate. I can't imagine how you would come to that conclusion from what I wrote.

> A government telling you

"You." Civil Rights are individual rights, not collective rights. Compelled speech is obviously not philosophically aligned with freedom of speech. But it seems you are using a collective "you", strongly implying the impositions that come from corporate personhood as a legal concept to be more tangible than they are even in current law.

> Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech not impeded _at all_. If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic regime out of 1984 that would force audiences to listen to those views.

I'm less absolutist here. Your argument has merit, and yet it misses the point. The bowling club kicking you out is not the same thing as being banned from Twitter. The bowling club is not a publishing platform which exclusively exists for broadcasting speech to people who choose to follow you. Twitter is. People who are highly offended by your statements on Twitter have many modes of recourse in order to not be accosted by your statements such as not following you, blocking you, or otherwise using available technical means to ignore you. The bowling club, however has no such filtering mechanism, nor is it's sole purpose for existence to provide a platform for individuals to broadly publish their speech, it exists for people to bowl and your highly offensive speech reasonably detracts from its purpose for existence.

Platforms are different from other forms of private entities, and they are treated differently under the law as such. Trying to conflate the two is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to take an absolutist position based in a conflation. Also, it's just plain wrong to say that "your freedom of speech not impededed _at all_." if you've been banned from a broadcasting platform. That's an obvious impediment, which shouldn't need further explanation.

[0]: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

[ilikehurdles]

> So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

There's a line between removing content and creating/editing content, especially when it's attributed to someone else. When you, publisher, start modifying others' content, it's reasonable that you become liable for the result. If you choose not to publish certain authors, for any reason goes against your acceptable use policies, I don't see an issue. It's off-topic comments on a forum. Political comments on a cooking blog. Etc. You have pretty wide latitude to define what is acceptable on your publishing platform, and that definition shouldn't have to be fixed throughout time.

> "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers

Twitter is not a common carrier. Social media is not a public utility. They are publishers.