

Taking a stand: Facebook, TechCrunch, and Free Speech - swombat
http://danieltenner.com/posts/0011-taking-a-stand-techcrunch-facebook-and-free-speech.html

======
dschobel
Sorry to be so negative but this is a simply terrible article. It's a remedial
lesson in free speech (and not a particularly articulate or entertaining one
at that) with the current context of social media added.

Anyone who cares about constitutional rights already will know more than this
article can offer.

~~~
hugothefrog
I quite agree.

This is a very poor discussion of the ideas and concepts at hand. Its not even
an 'introductory' level discussion; most of it is just plain uninformed.

Personally, my first reading has led me to find the conclusions quite
distasteful. I'm not sure a common carrier like Facebook should go taking
sides, as the author seems to be suggesting. I consider there to be a
significant difference between institutions (i.e. Facebook) taking sides and
people (i.e. a host of a party).

The internet, with a little searching, can supply far better arguments about
free speech than this.

------
TrevorJ
Don't get me wrong, I find hateful speech to be highly distasteful, but the
arguments in the article are flawed. They suppose that groups who practice
hate speech must by definition also be unwilling to allow dissenting
viewpoints the right to speak. While there may be correlation, saying that
hate speech is anti-free speech is a stretch.

It is also worth pointing out that simply disagreeing with certain viewpoints
and facts =/= hate speech in and of itself. Hate is defined by emotion and
intent, not agreement or disagreement on any particular point (Unless that
point is directly relevant to hateful behavior).

~~~
youngian
These were my thoughts exactly. There's nothing incongruous about saying "I
think Jews are dirty and evil but I respect your right to believe otherwise."
He implies that hate speech infringes on the free speech of others in some
way, which is a leap I don't feel is backed up.

I find his living room analogy to be not only a poor fit, but a dangerous
idea. "Would we, for the sake of free speech, allow this person to remain in
our living room?" Replace "living room" with "country" and you've got a common
anti-dissent argument.

~~~
frossie
Not only that, but the whole living room analogy is unillumating. Whose living
room is Facebook? Mine? The Nazis'? The founders'?

The real issue is this: we have traded many of our public spaces for
commercial spaces, and then we are surprised to find that we can't do whatever
we want in them. For example, you cannot hold a political protest in a mall
(or, as in the well-known case, even wear a political t-shirt in a mall). Your
mall might act like the town square used to be in your town; but it is a
completely different beast legally.

The reality is that online speech, where that happens on commercial/private
entities like Facebook or Twitter or whatever is not like speech in your town
square. Facebook is a private entity and they have the right to allow or not
allow whatever they feel like on their systems. If they want to ban
breastfeeding pics and allow skinhead pics, that is their business.

There's no point pretending that they owe you something just because you use
their site. The first amendment and similar protections where they exist in
other countries protect you from _the government_. They don't have anything to
say about commercial Internet entities.

[Edit following TrevorJ's comments below: To be fair, the law is starting to
struggle with some of these issues, see for example some suggestions raised
here:

<http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html>

In this context I am pretty sure that constitutionally, Facebook is no
different than a mall - if we could resolve the issues of free v. commercial
and controlled speech in malls, sponsored public events etc., I am sure that
Internet-based activities would be fall into that quite neatly]

~~~
TrevorJ
This is a really good point, I had not thought of that argument. Very very
true. Facebook is NOT the public square.

------
sgrove
I disagree on a number of points. I understand that it's a difficult subject,
but to just point out one example:

 _"The third important point is that not all speech is equal. Some speech has
direct, negative consequences. Few would argue that a person who yells “Fire!”
in a crowded theatre, and causes a stampede that results in 5 deaths and 25
injuries, should not be prosecuted. As an even more immediate example, the
words “Shoot him”, spoken to someone who holds a gun to your head, are
obviously not good speech."_

Free speech, as I have understood it, is about communicating _ideas_. These
are not ideas - these are a different creature altogether. Both are
communicated via words, but they are not the same.

The issue with facebook is that people are voicing _ideas_ \- the holocaust
never happened (I assume from the referenced article, I haven't cared enough
about this stuff to go to the source material), etc. That should not be
curtailed. That should not be limited. (Apparently) Hateful, and (to me)
simply stupid ideas should be discussed and discarded. In this case it's a
simple argument to make - denying the holocaust makes little to no sense
whatsoever given the evidence.

When someone says, "Kill the jews", then absolutely yes, an issue outside of
free speech has been raised. They are no longer communicating ideas, they are
advocating dangerous activities.

The line for some (especially those with more emotional involvement) may be
thin between the two, but it's still crucial to differentiate between them.
For one, the cure is relentlessly open and frank discussion, and for the other
a more mundane policing.

~~~
vollmond
Is the line, then, just between commands and non-commands? Are "all the Jews
should be killed" or "Jews cannot be alive" significantly different from "Kill
the Jews"?

~~~
sgrove
I suppose, since I haven't studied law as much as I should have, that there is
an already established set of guidelines. If I were coming up with an
admittedly vague rule-of-thumb off the top of my head, I think the line would
be speech advocating or intended to likely lead to the immediate harm of any
individual or group would not fall under protected speech.

And, looking it up on wikipedia, it seems that there is indeed already a set
of guidelines. John Stuart Mill introduced "the harm principle":

 _"John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty
of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,
however immoral it may be considered."...However, Mill also introduced what is
known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free
expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others."_

Makes sense to me, and should be used as the guiding principle. As swombat
pointed out below, there are cases where the replies were simply advocating
hard to a group of people. That's easy enough to take off. Holocaust denial
isn't so clear.

------
kevinpet
There's interesting points to be made regarding government regulation of free
speech vs. market actors, but this article makes none of them. There are
important questions about who can make judgments about what speech is worthy
of protection and what speech is not, and the article addresses none of them.

If I were a high school civics teacher, I'd give it a C for at least being
aware what the keywords to mention are, but no higher because it displays no
understanding of the issues.

~~~
swombat
Would you care to share those points with us?

------
gabrielroth
_When laws punish speech after the fact, those laws might be wrong, but they
are laws, not censorship._

Not according to First Amendment jurisprudence, which generally views such
laws as unconstitutional under the 'chilling effect' doctrine.

~~~
sgrove
I completely agree with your sentiment, but I think the issue is different -
what class of speech is protected? Speech, once protected, cannot be censored
nor punished after the fact. Unprotected speech can be both censored and
punished.

------
wheels
From what I've read the crux of the issue is that there:

\- Are laws in the US regulating "adult" content

\- Are not laws in the US regulating holocaust denial

As such Facebook is required to police adult content, whereas they'd risk
losing their status as a host (and become a publisher) if they were to apply
editorial scrutiny, making them, among other things, liable for copyright
violations, libel and whatnot on their platform.

~~~
swombat
This is probably the strongest argument I've read so far against Facebook
moderating hate groups.

It's worth pointing out, though, that this is not the argument Facebook is
making. They are refusing to moderate hate groups on ideological grounds, not
on legal grounds.

Good point, though.

~~~
wheels
Well, but you're not going to see a company saying, "We don't want to do X
because if we do X we'll be responsible for the illegal stuff on our servers."
– they're not going to admit there's illegal stuff on their servers.

------
maryrosecook
"hate speech directly attacks free speech"

No, it doesn't, but it might attack the aims of granting free speech. It may
make people feel less free, or less safe, but it doesn't take away their
ability to have their own say.

I think anybody should be allowed to say anything, and then people can resolve
problems on their own. Rational people limit what they say based upon the
environment. If someone asked me about my sexual identity in Alabama, I'd be
unlikely come right out and say I am queer.

A much more convicing argument for Tenner's point of view is:

Hate speech should be illegal because it impairs others' freedom. If a group
of workers in a male-dominated environment put up porn on the walls of the
changing rooms, it may make the few women feel uncomfortable.

In the case of the living room with the person spouting racist remarks, there
is a distinction between public and private places. In public: anything goes.
(There, it might be useful to incorporate sgrove's idea of ideas vs just
words.) In private, people have a right to control their own environment.

------
zzzmarcus
There are some pretty convincing arguments that directly repudiate the points
in this article in a book called Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block.
For example, there's a chapter called "The Person Who Yells Fire in a Crowded
Theatre" and one called "The Slanderer or Libeler."

You can get it free from Mises here: <http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf>

------
prodigal_erik
Why isn't anyone balking at the idea of establishing an official version of
history which must not be disputed? This is an even more specific and
Orwellian threat than censorship in general, and we're going there because of
a handful of racist idiots who apparently don't even have convincing
arguments?

------
shizcakes
Who decides what hate speech is?

~~~
TrevorJ
That is the other danger zone. It seems that more and more this is determined
by how the speech makes somebody else feel, but what is to stop me from going
to court and saying that Microsoft new ad campaign makes me feel hated for
being a Linux user? It's so subjective.

------
pageman
someone just asked Michael Arrington (see the comments):

Jeff: Hey Michael! You are Jew right ? Michael: I am a human being.

