🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Vectorfield

I dont exactly buy the whole "the first ammendment wasnt written for the modern era", so I disagree with your reasoning, BUT I do agree with your conclusions to some extent, that being that corporations that deal in social media, or rather, ones which have a near-monopoly on social media, should be legally obligated to uphold free speech policies. But my reasoning is quite a bit different than yours.

First off before UI explain why let me be clear, I only feel monopoly level social media companies that have a significant portion of the market should be required to uphold free speech principles, as such smaller companies like parlor or mastodon should remain free to censor as they see fit.

My reasoning is that when a private entity owns a large portion of a communication medium, and can control the speech unilaterally it becomes a kin to what we tend to define as a "public utility". This is the case with other communication means that in many cases have an infrastructure built by private companies, but where a common shared use is needed. for example the physical telephone wires, even when built by private companies, as part of a national network is considered a public utility. The same can be said of the internet infrastructure itself. For these reasons a telephone company can not restrict your free speech, it is treated as if in a public space, same thing for an ISP.

I would argue that because things like Facebook and Twitter are so pervasive, and in fact, the only medium most people can use to contact the majority of their friends and family, it too should be treated as a public utility. As such I would argue they should loose their rights to censorship in the way that other private forums or communities have a right to do.

@sgryphon

> free speech as a principle covers the right of someone to say something without fear of government censorship, but should not force people to listen to you.

Not entirely a few things off about this.

1) Free speech does not give you the right to say anything you want without government censorship. A government which upholds free speech can, and will, censor certain types of speech as I covered, for example calls to action. It only protects your opinions and your right to express them. There are a litany of forms of speech which do not fall under that umbrella such as calls to action, slander/libel, etc.

2) what you describe is **only** the principle of free speech when being applied in a legal context. It can and often is applied in other context. It is also often denied as a principle in many contexts. Ultimately that choice is up to whoever is making the rules for the medium of exchange.

> The natural consequence of someone saying bigoted and prejudiced things, or being mean, should be that people stop listening to them.

Generally yes, and no where in my original reply did I imply this wasnt the case.

If the government you live in employes free speech as a principle codified into law then a person is free to say whatever unpleasant things they want, assuming they are expressions of opinion, when standing on the sidewalk. You also have the right not to listen by plugging your ears or walking away

Similarly if a cafe employs the principle of free speech to its rules of conduct expected of its customers then the rules of such a cafe would likewise allow anyone within the cafe to say unpleasant things without consequence from the cafe owner or the threat of being kicked out. Just as before, however, you are not forced to listen. You as another customer who does not like that speech can plug your ears, or leave the cafe, you are not forced to listen.

> If you are a horrible person, I have no problem asking you to leave my coffee shop.

Of course, and you are welcome legally to do so, and morally completely justified in doing so as well. However in doing so you would not be employing free speech as a principle, though you would be in compliance with free speech as a legal right, at least as defined in the USA. All of this assumes the reason for the person being "horrible" is an opinion you find unpleasant and not something that falls outside of free speech such as harassment.

No one said it is wrong to not uphold free speech, in fact it is quite reasonable to a certain extent (too far in either direction becomes harmful). But you absolutely would not be employing a policy of free speech as cafe owner who kicks out people who express opinions you find unpleasant, though you would be upholding the legal principle of free speech, which does not have scope outside of public places.

> It has not infringed your right of free speech; you can go outside and continue speaking all you like.

This part seems to be where you get confused and mix up the meaning of free speech as a general principle, and its specific manifestation as a law. Rights are the domain of law, and you are correct that in kicking someone out you have not infringed on their **legal** right to free speech. But you have however refused to grant the individual free speech as rule of conduct within your cafe.

> It also does not mean I am against the principle of free speech - I am not advocating to ban you from saying such things, and would oppose any laws against such.

That depends, it means that you are against the principle of free speech within your cafe, but uphold the principle of free speech as a legal right as currently codified by law. There is no reason you cant do both, and in this case you would be.

> Free speech means rather than have the government step in, you should legally be able to say things, but then, importantly, SUFFER THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF BEING SHUNNED.

Being shunned isnt really the point here. If as a cafe owner you had a rule of conduct that allowed free speech then to uphold that rule you'd be unable to kick that person out. However shunning them, calling them a horrible person, not liking them, refusing to respect them or their opinion, not engaging them in conversation, would all be perfectly valid in this context and still be able to say the cafe has rules of conduct that are free speech in nature.

> What is the point of having free speech, allowing people to say dumb, horrid things, if I can't then throw them out of my coffee shop for being a dickhead?

You can, I never claimed in my original post or this one that you cant. The legal codification of free speech absolutely ensures you this right. It just means your cafe isnt a free speech space, and thats ok. It doesnt need to be, you have every right not to have it be if you want. Its your cafe, and you can make whatever rules you think creates the space youw ant.

@viv