
First Amendment in Peril? - martin1975
https://www.city-journal.org/html/first-amendment-peril-15401.html
======
mercer
I wish we'd disconnect the discussion about declining Nazis as customers from
the discussion about whether certain platforms/products have become important
or monopolistic enough that they should be regulated as a 'public' platform
where freedom of speech is upheld.

The former issue is almost impossible to discuss rationally at this point
(which is understandable), whereas the latter strikes me as ultimately more
important but also more complicated. Discussing them together makes everything
more difficult...

~~~
tw04
So which newspaper is forced to run stories on topics they don't like?

I don't get how you could ever claim a private business should be forced to
publish content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of
people gravitate towards. You want to talk about erosion of rights? What next,
scientific journals have to post bible passages alongside peer reviewed papers
as a "counter-point"?

~~~
mercer
I agree with you. I don't think a private business should be forced to publish
content they disagree with simply because they're a platform lots of people
gravitate towards.

I'm not sure why you choose to 1) be antagonistic/hostile for no good reason,
and 2) misinterpret my words, or worse, choose to put words in my mouth so you
can go and be outraged about it.

It does seem like a good illustration of the point I was trying to make,
though.

------
gremlinsinc
The first amendment (in case you haven't even read it!) : Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say.. and by the way ALL corporations must ALSO allow
freedom of speech. Their servers, their rules. The internet is about freedom
and it goes both way -- you're free to say what you want and the site you post
it to is free to remove that content if they deem it hurtful to others.

~~~
mike503
YES. This. I have tried to remind people that the amendment is only about
that. Corporations and anyone can do anything they want to (and risk the
blowback)

~~~
bencollier49
That's fine, but when most of civil society moves over to closed corporate
eletronic platforms, you have to ask whether those platforms should have
analogous rules, and if not, why not.

~~~
gremlinsinc
These 'closed' entities like facebook...you realize their only power is the
people... if people get fed up they can just leave... All the Nazi's are free
to go leave start their own networks, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Freedom of speech also doesn't mean we need to hear you rant on and on about
'white culture'. So if the majority of us complain, and FB/Google/Apple listen
to the majority (i.e. democractically decide) that you're out -- then goodbye
you've lost in the marketplace of ideas.

I'm white, a mutt from Irish, German, and English stock, but white culture
doesn't mean shit to me...now Irish, German, English culture--that actually
means something. I'm sure there's probably some hispanic/indian could even be
some african american.. I think a lot of racists would be surprised if they
ever would ante up for a DNA test.

------
rdlecler1
The constitution serves as the U.S.'s first principles of a moral society. No
matter how good the intentions, once we start to let other moral imperatives
supersede the moral imperitives set forth in the constitution we fundementally
change the fabric of the U.S. and frankly it puts the entire experiment in
peril.

~~~
boomboomsubban
So where was the peril for the first century, with slavery and blacks not
guaranteed the rights stated in the document? Or the fifty years after where
women couldn't vote? The imprisonment and killing of leftists during the red
scares and other labor movements? The imprisonment of a hundred thousand
innocent civilians during WWII?

The experiment has survived two hundred years of bigotry, if it can't handle
private companies choosing not to help racists it isn't worth continuing.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I love this comment...that and I think op hasn't read the constitution at all:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does it state that companies must allow free speech on their business
property, or servers? It doesn't, it applies to GOVERNMENT entities and public
lands/property.

If a Nazi steps foot on my PRIVATE property I can call the cops and charge
with trespassing. Once they're on my property their freedom of Speech goes out
the window. Same w/ google/fb et. al.

They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain
market share...but good luck with that.

~~~
throwaway0255
In a hypothetical future, if Facebook were able to exploit its network effect
to the point of having near-100% market share on all private communications,
would you still defend their right under the constitution to police all
private speech in America at their sole discretion?

That's the question that's being asked.

And you can say people can vote with their feet, but what about when "voting
with your feet" means permanently and significantly extricating yourself from
your family and friends?

> They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and
> gain market share...but good luck with that.

That's exactly the point. Through network effects, these companies have
achieved monopolistic market positions on how American citizens communicate
with each other.

If we're going by spirit of the law (as we often do with the law out of
necessity, especially as technology advances), then clearly the spirit of the
first amendment did not intend to nullify itself in a hypothetical future
where all communications were privately owned by a handful of corporations.

If the telecoms all decided to put in speech recognition software that
automatically terminated phone calls when it detected negative sentiment
toward a particular political group or initiative, would you defend that?

What if UPS and FedEx decided to do the same to letters, and return them all
to sender or burn them? They have a right to burn letters that criticize their
favored candidate, because you agreed to it in the EULA. Don't agree to the
EULA? You don't get to receive Amazon packages anymore. Would you defend that?

~~~
valuearb
This isn't a science fiction-fantasy short story. Facebook can't control shit.

You will always have freedom of speech in your home, and you can always choose
a free platform to share your thoughts on, even if you have to build it
yourself from open source software.

What you actually are describing is government driven tyranny. UPS and FedEx
and Facebook have no direct commercial interest in censoring you. The reason
they take any interest in your parcels and posts is because our government and
our legal system has required them to. They have been made liable if they ship
your letter bombs or share your hate speech.

If you are afraid of a society where all corporations restrict your rights in
concert, you are actually afraid of an overarching government without limits
that's stripped you of your rights and uses corporations to extend it's reach.
There is actually a name for this type of government, they call it Socialism.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Socialism is actually an economic concept not a form of government just as
Capitalism isn't our form of government, but Republic is. Socialism means
pooling resources to get shared commodities for instance: Public roads and
Firehouses are socialist programs as is Medicare/Medicaid and single-payer
healthcare.

I think you're thinking more of Fascism:

Definition: Fascism is a way of ruling that advocates total control of the
people. ... Fascism comes from the Latin fascio, meaning “bundle, or political
group.” In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must
be controlled by the government with absolute force.

~~~
boomboomsubban
It would be an authoritarian plutocracy. Power is held in the hands of a small
group of super rich. Fascism isn't a form of government either, it was the
name of Mussolini's party which has since been applied to any authoritarian or
nationalist movement.

~~~
valuearb
All socialist governments are plutocracies. Witness Venezuala where Chavez
divvied up the economy and gave all the pieces to his closest friends. Those
in power always enrich themselves just as Putin and his cronies have.

~~~
boomboomsubban
Even if true, which I don't believe, your own reply points out the problem.
Russia isn't socialist country, and pre-socialist Venezuela had a similar rate
of corruption. Not all plutocracies are socialist.

------
alkonaut
There is never an absolute and total freedom of speech. That is, there is
always speech of the kind than a society cannot and must not tolerate.

Either a country accepts this _within_ its legal framework and has e.g hate
speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as
being "outside" the law - and it must be met with force outside the law.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both models (which is why both exist). But
at the end of the day there is little practical difference between "if you
carry a nazi flag you'll go to jail" and "if you carry a nazi flag you'll be
punched in the face".

In both cases open society is judging and delivering the sentence.

The notion that all speech must be accepted and never met with violent protest
is both unrealistic and dangerous.

So to get back on topic: 1st amendment protects the open society but doesn't
function without an open society. Violent protestors at rallies and tech
companies gagging fascists is what it needs, and not a problem.

~~~
throwaway0255
> Either a country accepts this within its legal framework and has e.g hate
> speech laws (e.g Germany) or it doesn't (e.g US), but in the latter case as
> being "outside" the law - and it must be met with force outside the law.

Or it could, you know, not be met with force outside the law, because we live
in a civil society where people are free to think independently and express
themselves, and we have laws against assaulting people.

Call me crazy.

I don't know when in my lifetime liberals pulled this 180 on freedom of
speech, but seriously, it's causing me to do the hardest 180 of MY life right
the fuck into being a conservative after spending the first 30 years of my
life as a liberal.

What you just wrote is one of the craziest things I've ever read. You're
directly calling for and praising violence against people based on their ideas
and beliefs and how they choose to non-violently express them. Just 10 years
ago you'd be booed by every liberal in the nation and rightfully regarded as
an anti-intellectual, a book burner, or a fascist.

My whole life, liberals were so proud to declare that they defend their
opposition's right to speech even though they don't agree with it. When did
this change?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
"When did this change?"

When we grew up and realized that no, people really shouldn't be marching the
street calling for genocide or calling for other groups to be treated as
animals. When we realized it is bad to harass others, by surrounding them with
torches and yelling racist slurs or by burning freaking crosses in someone
else's yard.

When we realized that we don't actually want to spread hate and convince
others to think the same.

This won't stop folks from thinking this or spreading it to some extent, but
there isn't a reason we have to give them space in the public sphere, with
marches on public roads obviously meant for _everybody_ , regardless of
background. Nor does an employer have any need to respect the right of their
employee to spread hate, a web hosting service to host the websites, and other
such things.

Another thing we've realized as we've grown up is that one cannot both protect
freedom of speech like this and have any true means of actually overcoming it.
This puts actual goals like equality and a more fair society at risk.

And above all, it changed when folks re-thought "Fuck Nazis and Fight them".

Of course, this is all just speaking from the top of my head and nothing in
here is known fact without someone factchecking it, as I have not.

~~~
chrisco255
You fight bad ideas with reason and persuasion. Period. If someone does
something illegal, you get the authorities involved. Speech is protected, even
"offensive" speech. Civics 101.

~~~
alkonaut
Their speech is protected as legal (in the US, might vary elsewhere).

What I was getting at is that their platform is not guaranteed. They must be
shut down, their speech drowned. Non-violent protest as long as possible,
violent only as a last resort. But you don't let nazis speak and shrug and say
"it's their right, let's hear them, try to convince them they are wrong".

~~~
chrisco255
Unless they are literally calling for imminent violence against other human
beings, it is their right to protest. It's your right to counter-protest all
the same. But it's not your right to get violent. Ever. Only in self-defense.
What the hell happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me"?

~~~
alkonaut
I never said it was counterprotester's "right" to intervene physically. I do
argue it's in rare cases the right "right" to do.

My point is that if left unrestricted, free speech kills itself. Those who
speak against it can end it without ever doing anything violent.

You can't wait for something illegal to intervene.

I'm not saying it's somehow "wrong" to have a 1st amendment style law as in
the US - I'm saying it doesn't matter. When people speak against the open
society and people's equal value, society will try to stop them. If it's in
the law as in Germany then those that intervene have police uniform. When it's
not law, those who intervene don't have police uniforms, and do formal "right"
to do it.

Third option where nazis speak freely and people listen and then meet their
opinions with their own? Not happening, anywhere.

------
yedava
This is pure hyperbole. Mobile phones have these things called _browsers_
where users can visit _websites_. Is having an app convenient? Yes,
definitely. But in this case the lack of an app does not threaten the First
Amendment.

~~~
eeks
This is a dangerous argument. The government censors this or that site. But
wait, you have a VPN? Then your rights are respected. Oh, the government
forbids VPN. But wait, you have Tor? Then you rights are respected. Making one
particular medium more difficult to access than other comparable medium is one
kind of censorship and threatens the first amendment.

~~~
valuearb
The first amendment does not allow the government to censor a site, so your
post makes zero sense.

------
klondike_
The argument here isn't really whether Google has the right to censor free
speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the
government.

The real issue here is how much control two companies have over nearly all of
the country's computing. These devices are locked down to the point where
Apple or Google choose what you can and can't do with your device, and give
the user few ways around it (At least Android allows sideloading apps). Free
computing will soon be dead.

The internet isn't as bad, but is headed in the same direction. Information is
being increasingly consolidated into CDNs. While you can still host a server
yourself, I fear that soon that will be dis-incentivized: Just look at Google
AMP. Not to mention the shaky status of Net Neutrality at the moment.

None of this is illegal of course, private companies are free to do what they
wish. However, the way things are heading is depressing.

~~~
emmelaich
> _The argument here isn 't really whether Google has the right to censor free
> speech or not. It clearly does, the First Amendment only applies to the
> government._

Mostly true but not completely true. Look up penumbral constitutional rights.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_\(law\))

2\. [https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-
ho...](https://journalism.ku.edu/cherry-picked-professor-studies-how-first-
amendment-applies-private-companies-regulate-online-speech)

------
toast0
I'm a strong proponent of free speech, including abhorrent speech, but
capricious removal from the platform stores doesn't offend me. On Android,
it's not hard to install apks from websites. On iPhone, it's a lot harder, but
iPhone is a minority of the market, and Apple has made a point of curating
their store to some degree, I simply don't expect them to accept everything
and they are inconsistent, too; but even old iPhones have enough economic
value to trade for an Android, if the owner decides they don't like the
aesthetic choices Apple has made with their app catalog.

This feels significantly different than refusing to register a domain, or even
refusing to host objectionable content. As a user, I expect app stores to
perform some sort of judgement about apps, and not simply allow any app that
is not unlawful.

------
passwordreset
I think that the author had a good point, that while we're worried about "hate
speech", the real first amendment is being attacked in many other ways. That
right wing terrorists want to take away the freedom of speech for Jews
immigrants, and protestors. That companies now want to remove the free speech
rights for their own customers. That politicians want to get rid of any speech
that maligns them. I agree wholeheartedly with the author when said that these
are the real threats to the first amendment. "Hate speech" isn't the issue.
The issue is the scumbags spouting the hate.

------
kstrauser
No. No one's telling Nazis they can't put their venom on the Internet -
they're just disinclined to help them. Joe Nazi has the right to say stupid
things, but what about Google and Apple's right not to host their content? And
what if hosting that content reduces others' freedom of speech by making them
afraid to speak?

Frankly, the slippery slope argument doesn't carry much weight with me here.
Companies are choosing not to help literal swastika-wearing Nazis. No one's
refusing to carry other non-extremist content, whether garden variety
conservative pro-life or anti-gay-marriage messages, or liberal BLM or Antifa
pages.

I'm a huge free speech supporter. I donate to EFF and the ACLU. And yet, I'm
perfectly OK telling Nazis to go find their own Internet and please stay off
mine.

(And to be clear, I don't mean "Nazi as in someone whose opinions I don't
like", but "Nazi as in throwing a sieg heil salute and calling themselves
Nazis".)

~~~
0xbear
Comcast CEO: I bet you a million dollars you can't get the Left to come out
against Net Neutrality

Trump: Hold my beer

~~~
Toboe
To use the wikipedia definitionof net neutrality: Net neutrality is the
principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the
Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or
charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type
of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

What does that have to do with googles decisions on community grooming? Do you
disagree with the notion that googles appstore forms a (sort of) community
with moderation (regardless of what one thinks about this exact moderation-
action) where as the data an ISP delivers isn't a community?

Because if we accept that notion, then your comment seems to be a red herring.

~~~
0xbear
Let's say Google bowed to internal/external pressures and started "grooming"
its communities by denying service to conservative news outlets and
individuals its AI and human curators decided are not in alignment with
Google's prevalent ideology. To me such a thing is just a few steps away from
where we are at the moment. In fact in some cases it's already happening:
demotion in search ranking, demonetization of YouTube videos, cooked
autocomplete results, just to name a few examples. Twitter also engages in
"grooming" all the time. Even unquestionably legitimate opinions (like those
of e.g. Scott Adams) are shadowbanned and de-trended, where more radical ones
from the left (calls for assasination of the president or calls for violence)
are present in the trends.

If your retort is that these platforms are companies, then you have to apply
the same reasoning to Comcast, Verizon, and many others that control the last
mile. If CEOs of those companies also decide to engage in "community
grooming", life could get very interesting.

~~~
Toboe
>If your retort is that these platforms are companies, then you have to apply
the same reasoning to Comcast, Verizon, and many others that control the last
mile. If CEOs of those companies also decide to engage in "community
grooming", life could get very interesting.

Do you agree or disagree with the notion that the google play store or twitter
have communities while ISP do not (and, according to net neutrality
proponents: should not)? (At this point of the discussion: regardless of what
you think of the specific community grooming actions taken)

Because if one side has communities and the other does not, then your comment
is comparing apples to oranges. (in the context of net neutrality)

------
scarface74
How is not allowing an app on either App Store preventing people from
exercising their free speech? Why do you need an app at all? They could easily
just build a website and call it day.

------
PeachPlum
This was the plan Hillary Clinton told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
in 2011 - [https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-
meeting-...](https://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/state-department-meeting-with-
oic-to-discuss-free-speech-restrictions) she had for restricting free speech
in the US:

> We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a
> universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting
> interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws,
> protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and __to use
> some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming __, so that
> people don 't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

~~~
kstrauser
What part of "freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of
our democracy" restricts free speech?

~~~
PeachPlum
Did you miss "using old fashioned peer pressure and shaming"?

The SoS telling foreigners how she will attack the free speech of the citizens
she is supposed to representing.

------
Toboe
> Perhaps it is time that spectrum licenses to mobile-phone companies be
> conditioned on their recipients providing freedoms for customers to use the
> apps of their choice.

Do google and apple have any spectrum licenses? (ignoring that fact that you
can install apps on android without needing googles consent)

------
bobjordan
It may not be long before these major firms are regulated like a public
utility. I read that Steve Bannon had been working on that suggestion, but
since he's out now, hard to say how much traction it actually had in the White
House.

~~~
valuearb
It's a great example of how public regulation is an insidious form of
censorship. Public regulation is used to force major firms to toe the line of
the political party in power, if it's Steve Bannon's crew you ain't going to
like the result.

We don't need public regulation of social media or app stores because we all
have the opportunity to get our information and apps from other sources.

------
dzaragozar
Mandatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

------
chrisco255
If this doesn't make the case to gradually shift to decentralized Blockchain
based tooling for social networking, I don't know what does.

