Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I really disagree. Forcing someone to say something they don't agree with is a violation of free speech.



First, a corporation is not someone. Second, forcing a corporation to repair the damage they done is the right thing to do.


Regardless of "corporate personhood," this still amounts to forcing individual people to say something they disagree with.

They should still be forced to pay damages. In this case, sufficient damages for Samsung to publicize the ruling.

Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.


Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.

What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?

Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.


What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case?

Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.

Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?

The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.

Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.

I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.

People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.


> The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.

But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.

Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.

While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?

Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.

I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.


People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.

Hmm, OK, I see what you're saying. That sounds like a reasonable point.


So, no "say you're sorry"?

Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?


Please name an individual person who has been forced.


In this case, literally everyone who works for Apple or holds Apple stock.

Would it help to imagine a company in Apple's position that was a sole proprietorship with no employees? So the company was just one guy?

What about a company with 5 shareholders who work on the business, and no employees?


If I want to market a soft-drink containing cyanide, do you think free speech means I don't have to mention the dangers of my drink?

What if I disagree with the required warning?


This is a red herring. If you market a soft drink containing cyanide, you are (rightfully) put in prison and stopped from producing it.

To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.


But not, apparently, required to tell anyone who's bought it not to drink it.

This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.


Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with.

So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.

The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.

It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.


if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.

I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).

Let me reiterate.

The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.

You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.

How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.


It's unclear whether you are failing to read the example, or whether you are using your own definition of fraud that you haven't shared.

Fraud requires intentional deception. My example is unequivocally NOT fraud, since the seller believes they are telling the truth.


except there is no free speech in UK. free speech only exists in USA. but at the same time you can say the equivalent of fck or sht on a public tv in France, so ... i dont mind free speech...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: