[tonyvince7]

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

- From Noam Chomsky's (Chomsky's grandparents are holocaust survivors) on the foreword for "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" for the book of French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.

[NovemberWhiskey]

... and Goebbels and Stalin were both part of the government.

Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones?

Freedom of the press means being able to print what you want, not being able to compel the printer. Facebook doesn't have to be complicit in publishing speech it finds repugnant, and why should it?

[lki876]

The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions. The legal differences between those entities has nothing to do with the general concept.

[Cthulhu_]

The concept, no; however, freedom of speech also covers Facebook's freedom to not provide a platform if they choose to do so.

You cannot make me say, write, or publish something I don't agree with; freedom of speech is also the freedom to NOT speak. This extends to individuals and platforms both.

In WW2, newspapers were controlled by the invaders; they were told what to publish, even if the people behind it disagreed.

[lki876]

This confounds the difference between a platform and a publisher. If you chose what to publish, you're a publisher. That means you chose to speak, or not to.

A platform does not chose, but merely let's people speak -- or if it doesn't it interferes with free speech.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions.

But the manner in which governments can affect free speech is very much broader, because they can criminalize and regulate it in a way that is generally binding on all societal participants.

Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments: except that the government includes the judicial branch that decides disputes over contracts.

[lki876]

> Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments

The concept has absolutely nothing to do with governments. If you were the only person in the world living alone on an island, the concept would still exist.

That some entity deals with the concept, or doesn't, does not change this.

[noarchy]

>Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones?

Because memories of the Cold War are fading quickly? Now in 2020 people (on both the Left and Right, mind you) are, with a straight face, trying to argue that social media should be seen as a "public utility", and regulated accordingly. We're rapidly on track to losing what is left of a free Internet.

[josephcsible]

> Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones?

Because Facebook wields more power than most countries' governments do. This would almost certainly be a lot less upsetting if it were a smaller site doing it.

[NovemberWhiskey]

That's a nice soundbite you've got there, but what does it actually mean?

Facebook can imprison people? Fine them? Revoke their permission to travel? Fire them from their jobs? Decide their contractual disputes? Determine the taxes they should pay?

None of the above?

[josephcsible]

More power in terms of ability to censor/effectiveness of censorship.

[NovemberWhiskey]

Facebook can throw me in prison for saying the wrong thing? Facebook can issue notices to other publishers telling them they cannot publish what I write? Facebook exercises general control over which internet sites are available in my country?

None of the above?

[josephcsible]

Facebook choosing to try to censor something would be more effective at reducing the number of people who ever see it than most countries choosing to try to censor it would be.

[gridlockd]

If Facebook becomes a publisher and not merely a conduit of speech, it must simultaneously be legally liable for what it publishes.

[NovemberWhiskey]

Let's not hide behind the technicalities.

Facebook makes your content available to a much larger audience than you might otherwise have access to, which is to say publishes it in the common English meaning of the word even if, under US law, it's not regarded as a publisher w.r.t user-generated content.

In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfiltered conduit.

[gridlockd]

> In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfiltered conduit.

There is the provision that a common carrier must not discriminate[1]. In return, the common carrier is absolved of certain liabilities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

I'm not saying Facebook is (or should be) considered a common carrier, I'm saying Facebook shouldn't get to have it both ways, as it currently does. The law hasn't quite caught up here yet.

[Cthulhu_]

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/

[bArray]

I really appreciate what you've written here and I'm sorry you're going to get down-voted into oblivion. The down-vote button is sometimes used as a replacement for proper engagement.

Free speech is not what allows hate to grow, it's lack of it. Look at every awful event in history - it's always surrounded by misinformation, propaganda and a lack of free speech. The only way they can gain control is by oppressing the speech of their opposition.