For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
I’m not a self-determination absolutist
I’m not a due-process-of-law absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-movement absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-conscience absolutist
I’m not a warranted-search-and-seizure absolutist
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that.
In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward.
Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny.
The less common disclaimer
I’m not a censorship absolutist
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor.
People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk.
An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
I added the disclaimer to my comment because there is speech that is legal, but i think is okay for private entities to regulate on their own platforms. A couple of examples that I considered:
While it’s legal to say really racist shit, it’s okay for something like an internet forum to mod such speech if they want to enforce some community standards.
It’s legal to spread misinformation about a global pandemic, but it’s okay for a private entity to mod it if they decide they dont want to contribute to hurting people.
My point is that I think private entities can regulate speech on their own platforms in some ways, but not others. Some thoughtful nuance is required and we need regulation that enforces all this. Left to their own, corporations like apple will hurt us.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
this community seems to cower from defending ↩︎
I added the disclaimer to my comment because there is speech that is legal, but i think is okay for private entities to regulate on their own platforms. A couple of examples that I considered:
While it’s legal to say really racist shit, it’s okay for something like an internet forum to mod such speech if they want to enforce some community standards.
It’s legal to spread misinformation about a global pandemic, but it’s okay for a private entity to mod it if they decide they dont want to contribute to hurting people.
My point is that I think private entities can regulate speech on their own platforms in some ways, but not others. Some thoughtful nuance is required and we need regulation that enforces all this. Left to their own, corporations like apple will hurt us.