[rbecker]

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri...

And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, no, wait, no they can't. That would be a problem. Even though the constitution allows it. But this, this isn't.

[cgrealy]

Yes, because race is a protected class. Being a murderer... isn't.

[rbecker]

I thought we were discussing what the law should be, not what it is. Or more broadly, how companies and people should act, not what they can get away with under the law.

As for the murderer bit... well, if we already know it was murder, why are we bothering with a trial? Lets just ask Facebook, and sentence him accordingly.

[yokaze]

You are right, there is a distinction between a murderer and bring accused of it. Still the point of the grandparent stands: being accused of a crime is not a protected class. People are ostracized when not even having to face court, or being judged not guilty. And I bet, there are cases were you feel entitled to do so too.

Point is, those are individual judgements and I kind of doubt that you really want to advocate being mandated by law not to do so.

[rbecker]

> individual judgements

There's a difference between an individual making a judgement, a payment processor making a judgement, and a communications platform with over 2 billion users making a judgement.

Perhaps not (yet) legally, but we should at least be able to admit the effects on society are very different. In fact, we do, when it suits us. Talk about Facebook "allowing hate to spread", and all those "private company they can do what they want" arguments disappear (or get made by an entirely different set of people), as some people miraculously become able to understand the difference in kind between a single individual and one of the largest companies on Earth.

[ykoll58]

Civil rights are protected under law, specifically. Regarding race, if a business receives public benefits e.g roads, grants, tax breaks. Then the entire public is allowed access to that business (products/services) or they should not receive said benefits.

TL;DR of the article is... “Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas.”

What about the freedom of those stating they don’t want your speech on their platforms?

Freedom of speech goes both ways. Beautiful thing is, if the author doesn’t like it then he can write an amendment to the constitution and request a vote.