It used to be that free speech was an ideal to strive for and not just a law companies could hide behind as private entities; the argument that the first amendement only applies to the government. Up until 2016 Silicon Valley was full of libertarians fully believing in free speech principles. The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. It seems things have changed.
I'm talking about free speech in general. Will the ACLU today defend Trump supporters? No, they won't. But they used to defend _actual_ nazis. Similarly, Apple would have never banned this app 10 years ago.
I _am_ talking about free speech in general. There has been in shift in how mainstream media and politicians (and companies) view free speech. Some newspapers and politicians are even calling for the abolishment of the first first amendment. Unimaginable 10 years ago.
Case in point:
>The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”
Historically, the principle of free speech was never about "businesses have to let you say whatever you want inside their property", because that's ridiculous.
Nobody was ever arguing that Nazis should be able to hold rallies inside McDonald's restaurants. Nobody was arguing that newspapers are obligated to reprint every letter to the editor they receive, rather than picking and choosing. It's pretty much always been about government interference, which is why cases like that were about public spaces, not private ones.
Acting like free speech is about what businesses let you say on their property is ahistorical, and reveals that the speaker is either ignorant of this history, or being deliberately disingenuous.
> You keep missing my point. Stop focussing on the specifics of this case, that's not relevant to my argument.
Seriously? You blame me for using the very example you brought up in the first place? Well, that's a new low.
> A shift in society. That is my point. Historically free speech was seen as an ideal to strive for. Now it's considered a bad thing.
Again, that's not free speech. Whether Twitter or Facebook or a random IRC channel lets you post there has nothing to do with free speech.
It has to do with their own internal policies, but they're not the government, and never have been.
Freedom of expression includes the right to pornographic images, but that never stopped Apple and Google from banning such apps; they always had a number of different limits on their app stores. Sure, they've probably changed a bit over time. That...basically always happens with services, especially when they scale up. What works when you're small doesn't always work when you're big.
>Seriously? You blame me for using the very example you brought up in the first place? Well, that's a new low.
My very first comment was not about Parler but in general. Which you keep misunderstanding.
You also seem to not understand the difference between the ideal of free speech and the law. When I'm talking about free speech I'm not talking about the government.
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Nor is the definition of freedom of speech mentioning anything about the government.
> Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
You're welcome to check how the principle of free speech is protected in other democracies as well. I think you'll find it's largely the same: it's about government interference, not the freedom to say whatever you want within any business.
> My very first comment was not about Parler but in general. Which you keep misunderstanding.
No, your first comment was implicitly comparing the content of the article this thread is based on -- which is about Parler -- with the ACLU defending Nazis marching in the streets.
Which is an absurd comparison that ignores the historical definition of free speech.
> Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.
> You're welcome to check how the principle of free speech is protected in other democracies as well. I think you'll find it's largely the same: it's about government interference, not the freedom to say whatever you want within any business.
And if a private platform bans a form of speech at the behest of the government, would it then be considered government interference?
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...