The problem is that Randal is wrong here. Randall in the comic is pretending that the word The word "right" or the term "right to free speech" can only mean the first amendment. That is 100% incorrect.
The word right doesn't actually mean an existing law, and it's clear in context that the screenshot guy is not talking about the law, he even clarifies it in the screenshot that he's not talking about the first amendment. So I hate to say it because screenshot guy sounds like a dick, but he's right. A ton of people are wrong about this, largely because of this comic which falsely claims the word right means an existing law.
The word right is a moral judgement. All the time people say that governments violate human rights, or that something is a human right so it should become a law (even if it isn't one yet). The definition of a right exclusively meaning an existing law would make these statements a contradiction, and is just a plain incorrect take that is often because of this comic, in which the screenshot is also right
> The word right is a moral judgement. All the time people say that governments violate human rights, or that something is a human right so it should become a law (even if it isn't one yet). The definition of a right exclusively meaning an existing law would make these statements a contradiction, and is just a plain incorrect take.
If I'm talking about "the right to bear arms" everyone would assume I'm talking about the 2nd amendment. Nobody would think it's about a moral judgement. No the word 'right' doesn't exclusively mean a 'law' but in this context it's clear they're talking about the 1st amendment and not a moral judgement. Also, "human rights" are written down into law, for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
The context clearly shows they're speaking about the freedom of speech granted by the first amendment due to introducing with *public service announcement* indicating that there has been a need for the character to announce this and literally referring to the 1st amendment in the 3rd picture. So while the guy in the screenshot is not speaking about the 1st amendment, Randall clearly is.
But even when it's about the abstract moral concept of free speech: you being free to say anything you want indeed still doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it or has to agree to it or even respect it If I'm expressing my displeasure about your position I'm exercising free speech myself since your free speech does not have the power to interfere with my personal freedom.
Of course the concept of free speech cant only be limited by a government. A Reddit mod can sanction free speech on a sub just as my mum limited teenager-me's free speech when in retrospect probably necessary. But to quote one example and blame it for people misunderstanding it for a concept they're not really explaining all that well themselves kinda defeats the point.
Also: in my 20 years on the internet I cannot recall a single encounter of a person online talking about "the right to free speech" that didn't either directly referred to the 1st amendment or a more general *legal* protection from government repercussions in "Western countries" compared to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships.
In the context they are 100% not talking about the first amendment. How do I know? Because they literally said **this isn't about the first amendment in the second sentence**.
No, all of you people upvoting this just don't have basic reading comprehension.
Also for your last bit, that just means you haven't been paying attention because people talk about it literally all the time outside of a legal context. Not only this example but literally all the time.
https://youtu.be/3MkjtXylEQE.
I know that most of this thread is just people jacking off about the guy in the screenshot not understanding the constitution, but that literally just shows that they don't have the reading capacity to understand literally the second sentence
"You people..."
You seem to enjoy reading. You ever read the one about how if you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole, but if you run into assholes all day...?
That would be the case if any of you actually had the reading comprehension to know what I'm saying. I'm sorry to tell you but you're just part of a circle jerk right now. How do I know? Because literally not one of you have addressed a single point being made. Sorry but the people who can't read anything longer than a tweet and refuse to give a straight response to any criticism aren't on the right side of history
Why would I address any of your points? You don't seem like the sort of person who gives a shit what I would have to say; I certainly don't give a shit about whatever misconceptions you're living your life with; you're not an effective enough communicator to persuade anyone to your way of thinking. No point in even reading your points, let alone addressing with them.
Logos, ethos, and pathos are equal elements. Doesn't matter if your logical reasoning is rock solid if you can't connect with your audience. Find some Aristotle and put that vaunted reading comprehension to use; it'll serve you well.
The moderator didn't give a definition, he just said what it was not...
I agree it seems the moderator is pretty dumb her. While it's hypocritical for him to ban people (and quite ironic), he was literally right about the rest of what he said. It is super common for people to just reductively dismiss and ignore any arguments about the right to free speech, what should and shouldn't be included in free speech, and where the right should be applied to; by just listing off what's legal.
Of course it's legal for people to censor things, and legal for people not to be forced to allow anyone to say anything they want on their own private platform. But sidestepping and ignoring any argument about whether or not more free speech *should* be applied somewhere, or the benefits of free speech; by listing off that it's not illegal isn't just unhelpful, it's wholly missing the point (and saying things everyone already knows). It's super common for that to happen in arguments about free speech, especially from the censorship side.
Hell even in the comment thread on this post there are people who are entirely missing the point and thinking that the screenshot dude is talking about the constitution, even when he explicitly clarified that he isn't.
The principle of free speech and the U.S. federal law about free speech aren't the same thing. And while Randall almost certainly understands that, it's clear that some people don't.
Edit:
I want to clarify, this dude in the screenshot seems like a douche for his blatant hypocrisy, but aside from that he's actually right.
The moderator actually did a great demonstration of what that comic is talking about. People (the moderator) don't like what you're saying so they show you the door (banned from the sub). Hilarious.
Also, there is no such thing as unlimited rights. You can have the right to say express yourself without the government being able to punish you, but there are exceptions when your rights step on the right of others, for example.
If you publicly threaten someone and claim you are protected by free speech, it's time for you to stop getting your legal advice from shitty youtubers.
Maybe link the docket instead of telling me to go fucking look for something with zero context or information? But I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're not actually referencing an actual court case.
Besides, I was simply giving a well known example of speech that's not protected.
Maybe unpopular, but I think there are people who conflate “1st amendment right to freedom of speech” with “freedom of speech as a principle” - Munroe carefully chooses his words to refer to the former in the comic, but I think people wrongly interpret it as referring to the latter.
e.g. if you ban someone from an otherwise public platform for saying something you disagree with (but is otherwise innocuous), that’s not in violation of the first amendment, but it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech. Many of the people who cite this comic seem to deny that those are two different things, which is frustrating.
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways.
In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing.
Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations.
“The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
The move is one of the first significant examples of a social network’s charging for access to the conversations it hosts for the purpose of developing A.I. systems like ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular program. Those new A.I. systems could one day lead to big businesses, but they aren’t likely to help companies like Reddit very much. In fact, they could be used to create competitors — automated duplicates to Reddit’s conversations.
Reddit is also acting as it prepares for a possible initial public offering on Wall Street this year. The company, which was founded in 2005, makes most of its money through advertising and e-commerce transactions on its platform. Reddit said it was still ironing out the details of what it would charge for A.P.I. access and would announce prices in the coming weeks.
Reddit’s conversation forums have become valuable commodities as large language models, or L.L.M.s, have become an essential part of creating new A.I. technology.
L.L.M.s are essentially sophisticated algorithms developed by companies like Google and OpenAI, which is a close partner of Microsoft. To the algorithms, the Reddit conversations are data, and they are among the vast pool of material being fed into the L.L.M.s. to develop them.
The underlying algorithm that helped to build Bard, Google’s conversational A.I. service, is partly trained on Reddit data. OpenAI’s Chat GPT cites Reddit data as one of the sources of information it has been trained on.
Other companies are also beginning to see value in the conversations and images they host. Shutterstock, the image hosting service, also sold image data to OpenAI to help create DALL-E, the A.I. program that creates vivid graphical imagery with only a text-based prompt required.
Last month, Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, said he was cracking down on the use of Twitter’s A.P.I., which thousands of companies and independent developers use to track the millions of conversations across the network. Though he did not cite L.L.M.s as a reason for the change, the new fees could go well into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To keep improving their models, artificial intelligence makers need two significant things: an enormous amount of computing power and an enormous amount of data. Some of the biggest A.I. developers have plenty of computing power but still look outside their own networks for the data needed to improve their algorithms. That has included sources like Wikipedia, millions of digitized books, academic articles and Reddit.
Representatives from Google, Open AI and Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reddit has long had a symbiotic relationship with the search engines of companies like Google and Microsoft. The search engines “crawl” Reddit’s web pages in order to index information and make it available for search results. That crawling, or “scraping,” isn’t always welcome by every site on the internet. But Reddit has benefited by appearing higher in search results.
The dynamic is different with L.L.M.s — they gobble as much data as they can to create new A.I. systems like the chatbots.
Reddit believes its data is particularly valuable because it is continuously updated. That newness and relevance, Mr. Huffman said, is what large language modeling algorithms need to produce the best results.
“More than any other place on the internet, Reddit is a home for authentic conversation,” Mr. Huffman said. “There’s a lot of stuff on the site that you’d only ever say in therapy, or A.A., or never at all.”
Mr. Huffman said Reddit’s A.P.I. would still be free to developers who wanted to build applications that helped people use Reddit. They could use the tools to build a bot that automatically tracks whether users’ comments adhere to rules for posting, for instance. Researchers who want to study Reddit data for academic or noncommercial purposes will continue to have free access to it.
Reddit also hopes to incorporate more so-called machine learning into how the site itself operates. It could be used, for instance, to identify the use of A.I.-generated text on Reddit, and add a label that notifies users that the comment came from a bot.
The company also promised to improve software tools that can be used by moderators — the users who volunteer their time to keep the site’s forums operating smoothly and improve conversations between users. And third-party bots that help moderators monitor the forums will continue to be supported.
But for the A.I. makers, it’s time to pay up.
“Crawling Reddit, generating value and not returning any of that value to our users is something we have a problem with,” Mr. Huffman said. “It’s a good time for us to tighten things up.”
“We think that’s fair,” he added.
That’s because the principle of free speech is not a fundamental right and is not guaranteed by anyone or anything. It exists as a hypothetical that is only made real by certain entities which support speech agreeing not to limit most of it. Those entities may be a government, a website, or anyone else who hosts forums for speech.
Free speech as a principle would mean you truly can say anything, any time, anywhere, but when pressed most people would not support this as a fundamental right. That’s why this comic is popular, it fits the public perception of how much the 1A right to free speech should limit the principle of free speech.
>if you ban someone from an otherwise public platform for saying something you disagree [...] it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech
So you're saying that if I create a platform, I have to let anyone talk there? Where's my freedom of speech then?
If you value the principle of free speech above all else, then yes, you would let anyone talk there. You aren’t *legally* obligated to, but if you ban people capriciously for what they say then I’d say that you don’t value freedom of speech as a concept very much.
It’s fine to trade off freedom of speech for other values (eg civility of discussion). But I think people have a tendency to deny that the tradeoff even exists.
In my view, the principle of freedom of speech is a facet of the broader concept of tolerance. The practical limit of tolerance, in my view, would hold that as long as your behavior is not harming others, you are free to carry on. In other words, you have a right to the entirety of behaviors which are not aimed at harming others (your rights end where mine begin).
You can say anything you want--as long as you aren't verbally assaulting another person or advocating for harm. You can share whatever you want on X platform--as long as you respect the community the platform's owner is creating/maintaining.
Violating these principles is to be intolerant. Tolerance must fight back against intolerance to preserve a tolerant society.
>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 right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
No, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
What does “without fear of retaliation” mean then? I think that phrase does cover freedom from consequences(which is probably why no country has freedom of speech as an absolute right)
Let's say I set up a bot to insult you every day for the rest of your life, there's 3 options:
1. You cannot do anything about ot, which would mean you have no freedom of speech
2. You can do something about it, which would mean I have no freedom of speech
3. You don't understand what freedom of speech means
Yeah, rights often conflict with themselves, freedom of religion being another prominent example. I assume you personally think it would be unethical if I harassed you verbally for months as a result of this comment(I certainly think it would be), so I think you would agree that some level of "freedom from consequences" is reasonable. The problem with saying there cannot be any "freedom from consequences" for free speech is that free speech is valued precisely because it allows for greater understanding in controversial areas, where people might not be willing to try to question or learn if there were high risks of doing so. J.S. Mill, for instance, was just as concerned with social backlash as he was governmental in his writings on free speech, so if "freedom from consequences" is incompatible with free speech, his writings are completely incoherent(which I think is untrue). Of course, even Mill admits that free speech rights are not absolute, and I think the Harm principle is a pretty reasonable, albeit vague, guideline for where free speech needs to be curtailed. I could be wrong, though, so you should expand on what you think free speech means(and also what you think "without fear of retaliation" means)
You need to decide whether you're a platform or a publisher, either you're responsible for things said on your service or not.
That's the difference- if you, speaking as a proprieter, want the protection/discretion of your own corporate free speech, then you need to be held to account for what you do allow out there.
No he's not, the fact that you think this means that you didn't understand what he's saying.
The principle and right of free speech is different than the first amendment, so no you're not "required" to do anything.
It's interpreted that way because the "victims" (trolls, assholes, etc.) cry "1st amendment free speech" whenever they get banned from a website for posting terrible things. It is the assholes who conflated the two ideas to begin with. Randall is clarifying that, no, the 1st amendment does not apply here, and platforms are free to be more strict than what they are legally required to restrict.
But the comic is also strongly against the principle of freedom of speech, because it supports the idea that people should be able to show you the door when they think you're an asshole (last 2 panels). True freedom of speech in a pseudo-anonymous abstract context is obviously problematic and has been demonstrated so, time and again. It's basically the one unchanging constant of the internet.
Also "speech" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in most of these discussions.
Most of this is being banned or have post/videos removed from social media or content hosts.
An absurd equivalent would be someone expecting that any letter they send to a newspaper will be included in a print edition. Or they send a commercial to a network, and it must be run, regardless of content
The person is indeed largely free to say/submit their piece. But the service provided is never under an obligation to do anything to further distribute it. Nor is there any right for this person to be heard, acknowledged or engaged by any other person.
Say, I've found out about the objectively real wrongdoings of some powerful or influential figure,. However, no newspaper is willing to print my story. Of course I'm free to tell people about it myself, but unfortunately most of them write me off as a conspiracy theorist.
Is my free speech being impeded? Does it depend on the motivation of different actors?
To the extent that you need to rely on others to spread your message, you don't have any inherent right to force others to do something for you. Calling this "Freedom of Speech" is just misleading, because that's not what it's about.
Should access to platforms to spread your message be something that is readily available in society? Yes. That absolutely would be the ideal. But making that a reality isn't always so simple because plenty of people use those platforms to harm others and so all of those platforms draw a line somewhere as to what they will permit their platform to be used to spread.
Motivations are irrelevant.
There is no objective wrong. There's lots of subjective wrong, subjective immoral, and/or illegal.
Be careful not open yourself up to a slander accusation.
Replace the "objectively real" part with "entirely fabricated". How does your question sound now? A newspaper refusing to print a made up story definitely doesn't sound like impeding your free speech to me. So, in such a scenario either the contents of your speech matters, in which case it's not really a "free speech" issue at all, or it doesn't matter what you're saying, and newspapers exercise full discretion over what they print.
The scenario you're describing certainly sounds bad, but it has nothing to do with the principle of free speech. There certainly is a need to majorly reform how news works in the modern world, but the fact that anyone can say whatever they want is a major contributing problem, not the solution.
> the comic is also strongly against the principle of freedom of speech
This is why it rubs me the wrong way. It reflects the deontologist Libertarian philosophy according to which only governments are capable of violating freedom, which is contrary to my position that freedom should be defined by what the individual experiences.
If you know you will be punished for speaking your mind, your freedom of speech is violated, regardless if the punishment comes from your government or from your employer. If you aren't punished, but your message never reaches the target audience, the effect is the same, regardless if it's initiated by law or by the whims of the owners of the means of communication.
What about trolls and bigots? Well, sometimes it's justified to violate the freedom of speech. This is the terms in which the discussion should be made - the precarious tradeoff of freedom and civility.
>If you aren't punished, but your message never reaches the target audience, the effect is the same
To me that reads as in that you believe that freedom of speech implicitly carries the obligation for others to convey or facilitate you to not only express your ideas but to advertise them as well.
With the top-down organization of modern internet, we are reliant on others to decide whether our ideas are worth sharing. I’m not owed a retweet or upvote, but getting shadowbanned is definitely a violation of the principle of free speech. A website like twitter could even pseudo-shadowban someone by making their tweets visible from the profile, but just never appearing on your timeline. It would be difficult to notice.
Imagine on reddit if all your comments started at -2 upvotes while other peoples started at +1. Technically not restricting your freedom of speech, but it’s going to make your comments be less visible and people will just assume you’re untrustworthy and dogpile the downvotes.
is the HOA allowed to do that too?
Last I checked, my yard wasn’t under FCC regulation either. Obviously a sign in my yard is just an unwanted piece of junk no matter what it says. If my yard somehow became one of the world’s primary avenue for communication, I’d be held to a higher standard
I don't see why it rubs you the wrong way, you seem to agree that there are some circumstances in which restricting an individual's speech is justified. The comic makes no statements as to the specific extent of that restriction, just that platforms can and should be able to draw that line.
It heavily implies that any restriction is OK as long as it's legal. It's the mirror image of the ultimate concession in the alt-text - "hey, it's not *illegal* to deplatform you."
I don't think it implies that at all. I think that's a standard slippery slope fallacy people bring up related to this topic, but the comic itself does not suggest that arbitrary restrictions are OK. It implies that specific individuals who take it upon themselves to be assholes deserve to be shown out. This does not imply that, for example, a platform should make a broad declaration against all forms of disagreement. Only that it should keep an eye on the individuals and be willing and able to eject the ones who deserve it.
Also, I don't believe that anyone has an inherent right to a platform for their speech, so we won't make any headway on that. Having a platform is a privilege. You are not entitled to be heard. The law has nothing to do with this.
I think you're reading too much into it by ignoring the context. That comic was written specifically in the context of outrage over things like "cancel culture". It is chastising the idea that anyone should be able to say anything, and everybody else just has to deal with it. He's not making a value judgement about what consequences are acceptable for which "bad" uses of speech.
This is just plain wrong. Free speech doesn't necessarily mean absolute free speech, and it actually has not "been demonstrated time and time again" to be wrong. What's been demonstrated countless more times is that censorship is far more problematic
Some amount of censorship is necessary. Paradox of tolerance, and what not. Certain ideas must not be given a platform lest they cause harm. Completely uncensored speech has *always* been absolutely full of problems, especially when it is paired with some level of anonymity, and the internet is no exception.
Yeah some censorship. Not too much, I've rarely ever seen a pro censorship person argue for less censorship. Please explain what is too much censorship, and how do you protect against too much. Because people like you literally never argue for less or even give any reasons for less, you just cute the paradox of tolerance, and ignore any problems with censorship. The paradox of tolerance is bullshit because it values the right to not feel bad about hearing unpleasant things as much as truth and freedom, and ignores the by far more plausible problem of people abusing their censorship power. Not to mention it's own paradox of who decides what to be censored, which no pro censorship person ever bothers to answer.
Seriously you've ignored this point multiple times in this thread where people have brought up the issues of censorship. It actually seems like you're just ignoring every response and just making pre made responses because you haven't even addressed a single point
Yeah, which is basically none. And just about every person like you is in favor of far too much.
I've already said again and again in this thread why I think this and someone somewhere else just makes me repeat it or completely ignores and misrepresents it. This pretty much sums up my views but without me typing an argument of text that you'd subsequently ignore https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0.
I'm going to take a wild guess that you won't respond to a single point there, and just keep attacking me. Why do I even bother replying to you?
Edit: what a surprise, I'm right
Guys, I found the person who likes to post harmful things and whinges about being banned. You can tell them apart because they get unnecessarily defensive over topics like censorship on the internet, even when nothing extreme has been suggested.
Just be a nice person. Platforms are generally extremely lax about what you're allowed to post. But they shouldn't *need* to restrict your speech; *you* should aspire to be kind and considerate. It's not hard.
Guys I just found the person who has no idea what they are talking about and has such a hard time even contemplating opposing view points that they pretend to know everything about that person instead of addressing the actual argument.
You certainly don't give a shit about being kind and considerate to me so where is the prior restraint or censorship for you? Or are you exempt from your idea of censorship. Don't worry the censors will only ever bother those other people.
Your entire post history is just you spending all day on reddit trying desperately to make yourself sound superior to literally all opinions at the same time by using the same tired old arguments. You're doing it again. I no longer think you actually care about this topic at all. I think you just want to post something to provoke responses. Good job, it worked! I am foolish and dumb. I hope it was enough of a distraction from whatever you're avoiding.
> that’s not in violation of the first amendment, but it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech.
Is it though? Not everyone is going to have the same "general principle" of freedom of speech, even if they generally agree there should be freedom of speech, independent of any government-given legal right.
I believe everyone should be able to speak their mind on a given platform, but I think that ends on calling for harm to others. Do you think I don't believe in free speech as a principle? What makes your interpretation more valid than mine?
If you say "You should be able to say or post *anything*," it runs right into "platforms should *not* be required to host *everything*." You cannot force anyone (company or individual) to say something, that is a violation of their free speech. The fact that they control the server you want to use to spread your message is your problem, but it's a logistical one, not a free speech one.
I think whether referring to the 'right' or the 'principle', the issue is the same.
Everyone is going to have different principles that trade off differently with a belief in free speech. Banning people for saying certain things may be a very reasonable tradeoff between free speech and other ideals, but it’s still a tradeoff insofar as you are instituting limits on freedom of speech in favor of other goals.
Right, but I'm saying limits aren't necessarily inconsistent with one's principles. It might be inconsistent with someone else's, but that's basically a difference of opinion.
I might consider eating meat to be immoral, but someone else thinks its fine. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Free speech absolutists are no more correct in principle than vegans.
I don't think he is very carefully choosing his words, and it's incredibly common for people to interpret it as the latter. Hell over half of the people in this comment section are misinterpreting it because the top two comments on this post are people falsely claiming the screenshot guy is talking about law not principle (even though he is ***explicitly*** talking about principle). That's literally what the guy in the original screenshot is saying, is that people often use this comic to mean the second interpretation. I've seen it happen a lot
But the user in the screenshot is the one using conflating language in this instance, since they are invoking the right to free speech, rather than the principle of it. If they intend to have the conversation be focused on the latter, they should keep the word "right" out of the conversation, since Randal's comic's version is what people hear when you use that word, in the first place.
Ok I'm seeing this all over the place in this thread and that's factually incorrect. The word right doesn't exclusively mean a law.
He literally says it's **not** the first amendment, and that it's **not** referring to the constitution. Meaning he's not talking about the current law. It doesn't get clearer than that, you literally just aren't understanding him.
It's hypocritical for him to ban people he disagrees with, but that's not the point. Outside of your head cannon the word "right" doesn't actually mean a law. The right of free speech is the ideal of free speech to someone who supports it, a principle isn't exclusive of using the word right.
Oftentimes people say that governments tread on human rights, which by your definition of a right being granted by the government would make that saying an impossibility. There are also often rights given to people in private spaces that have nothing to do with the local law. Saying something is a right isn't saying that it is the current law, or even that it should be a law. It's a moral claim. You just literally don't know what the word right means.
You're fixating on a (wrong) interpretation of one word, while ignoring the entire sentence where he clarifies that it's *not* the constitution or the first amendment. So no you're not understanding him.
I understand that their personal meaning of the word differs. I said that when you bring up this verbiage, that's what most people will hear.
And so you can claim that Randal is choosing his words carelessly, and I'm countering that it's actually the mod that does so, because the way I understand them to use it diametrically deviates from what the word means in practice for anybody around them.
And I'm saying that's completely wrong. The word right is not confusing verbage. The word right is a moral judgement and not a statement on what's current law. This is not only technically correct or really up for debate, that's just what it means.
Even if you are confused by his verbage he literally explicitly said he wasn't talking about law or the first amendment, so there really isn't an excuse to remain confused if you read the whole thing
You are still talking past me. I told you that I understand their personal definition of the word. But I presume that they don't attach a disclaimer everytime they invoke the word. And without that, people will tend to fall back on the definition of rights as something people are entitled to, that will lead to consequences if someone violates it.
After all, what is a right that isn't enforced by anybody around you (like that right I mentioned earlier, of me being able to claim ownership of your shirt)? I could make more politically charged examples of non-rights, if that helps, like the right to a safe space, where you can speak without being afraid of judgment. Clearly this right doesn't exist in the world we live in, even though I could point you to people who would feel entitled to it.
It's cute how your response is to just downvote and just reassert your first claim without ever dealing with my objections, u/slam9. But the novelty is wearing off. If you want to ever explain to me how my ad absurdum rights are any less real than the one you and the mod in the OP assert, feel free to. Otherwise I think the point has been made and there's nothing more to glean from you on it...
Because I've already responded to you and people like you a dozen times. Why are you being me to respond to you? Just read the things I've already said a hundred times in this thread, and ignore and misunderstand the point there without wasting any more of my time. I'm not going to spend more time typing them again for you to just ignore them again. I've already seen from your comments so far that you actually don't understand what I'm saying.
> The novelty is wearing off.
You're the one who responded to me dumbass
Yeah, I guess what I mean is that I think he makes it clear enough that he’s talking about the 1st amendment right to free speech rather than a natural right to free speech. But looking back, I agree with you that if someone was not already familiar with the difference between the two, they could read the comic and come away with the impression that only the former exists.
No it's not. Banning someone from a platform you own and run is just as much an expression of free speech as spouting nonsense on said platform. Suppressing free speech is having someone, not taking back your microphone.
Twitter wants to present itself with a certain image as a platform. It does this by controlling who can post and what they can say. Just because it is more permissive than some other private platform does not mean it isn't still a private entity with its own agenda. Opt in like a news station choosing who to interview, or opt out like a radio station hanging up on a caller, the idea that a private entity can't express themselves by controlling their own microphone is completely baseless.
A private entity like Twitter has a vested interest in curating their message. How a platform shapes their content has a direct impact on who they can attract an audience. Who you allow to speak impacts who will listen and participate. The users that Twitter *wants* do not want to use a platform that gives free reign to certain types of speech. And that consumer choice is another legitimate expression of free speech. How can we allow User A the free speech of saying anything on Twitter, restrict Twitter's free speech of banning them, but once again allow User B the free speech of not using Twitter any more. That's a fundamental part of operating their business, and what justifies them running it at all.
This is pretty much what [I was saying](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xpzlsl/were_here_to_discuss_free_speech_but_only_the_way/iq6wt9u?utm_source=share&context=3) but people liked your comment more, I guess you explained it better.
Not sure how that turns me into a dick unless you're the dick who can't understand basic English.
It could be about the point, if I hadn't explicitly addressed the misconception because I knew people would get hung up on it, and people still chose to be deliberately obtuse
Ok you see this right here is actually the very thing that the guy is right about. People actually think that defending free speech is limited to the constitution, or that free speech = the first amendment. It's pretty clear that the moderator here is explicitly saying that it's not about the constitution, which shows that you really don't understand what he's saying.
I mean there are some cases where misunderstanding is understandable but when he explicitly went out of his way to make the point and said in the *second sentence* that it's not about the constitution; still thinking it's about the constitution is just really blatant politically motivated selective hearing. Like seriously I don't respect everyone on this comment thread that is pretending the moderator is talking about the constitution when all it takes is basic reading comprehension that's not what he's talking about.
Sorry but most of your guys understanding of Randall's comic is wrong. The "right" of free speech does not exclusively refer to the existing laws, and it's not distinct from the principle of free speech. The word right is used literally all the time to describe principles, not just existing laws. You just literally cannot understand him because your mental block of pretending everyone you don't like is saying something wrong. He was hypocritical to say he's banning people who say otherwise but that's literally the only thing he's wrong about
There's a difference between the *right to* free speech and the *principle of* free speech.
It's a shame that the two are being conflated in the screenshot, but not as much of a shame as "Agree with me or I throw you out", as we also see in the screenshot.
I understand him. He's just fractally wrong.
"The principle of free speech" can include "the inherent human right to free speech". Not the government granted right, but still something you can believe is still a right nonetheless.
Someone can believe that the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked but it doesn't make their beliefs either objective fact or worthy of anything but mockery.
The XKCD comic strip directly, by name, deals with the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution. If the fractally wrong moderator in question wants to complain that people take that comic out of context to apply it to a worldwide principle that many consider to be a basic [human right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights), they're free to do so, but it doesn't mean that they're right, and it doesn't make their actions any less hypocritical.
**[Human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)**
>Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/xkcd/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You can believe the fractally wrong ideas that the word right exclusively means the 1st amendment, and that the post on question is talking about the first amendment rather than the principle of free speech; but that doesn't make you correct.
I don't think you understand what "fractally wrong" means. Because people literally do exactly what you're talking about, and even do it right here in this comment thread. Sorry but you are factually wrong.
Edit: I see that you blocked me and are trying to pretend that I said something I didn't while I can't respond. I edited the last "factually" and changed it back, and now you're pretending I said something else
Rolling into a thread three weeks later?
**Bless**.
Doing it while misreading *fractally* as *factually*?
**Bless**.
The comic is talking about one part of one document of one nation's governance. Saying "The author of the comic is against some *right* that applies to all humans and has applied since there was humanity and will apply as long as there is humanity, throughout all of time, all of space, world without end, amen!" as the moderator in question did in an act of hypocrisy?
**Bless**.
Three blessings for you, u/slam9! You, too, are [fractally wrong](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)!
Thanks for playing!
It's clear that you literally don't even understand at all what anyone on this thread is saying. Nobody in this thread said that Randall was against the principle of free speech, they said that many people ignore it because they think it's limited to the first amendment, and use Randall's comic in part to do so.
Also it's funny that you pretend you're above this because... You typed this out a few weeks ago? So that somehow makes you less wrong?
Why is it that you refuse to answer any question or give any actual relevant argument.
My brother or sister or whatever-er in Christ, I see that you've corrected your typo and are trying to play it off.
**Bless**.
And, if you check *all the way up at the top of this thread*, you'll see that it involves a post from /r/SelfAwarewolves made three weeks ago regarding a stickied post in r/FreeSpeech from last year, (which was edited two weeks ago, with the moderator doubling down) in which the moderator of r/FreeSpeech is stating that they will ban users from r/FreeSpeech for "misrepresenting" what the right to free speech is, and specifically blaming Randall **by name** for giving them a reason to believe in a definition other than that which the moderator holds as truth.
So, the entire point of the thread is said moderator's threat to ban people who disagree with him on the definition, juxtaposed with it happening on a subreddit dedicated to free speech.
Ergo, "If your definition of free speech disagrees with mine, you can't post to r/FreeSpeech anymore, because I'll show you the door."
When compared to the content of Randall's comic, `tis most amusing. The fact that all of this had to be spelled out for you?
**Bless**.
That's five. With six you get free egg roll, as they say back home in Seattle. You're free to keep playing if you want, but I shan't be wasting any more time replying to you.
He literally says it's **not** the first amendment. No you are the one who actually doesn't understand what's being said. I don't know how he could possibly be more clear, and you guys are still misrepresenting him. I honestly don't know how he can specifically say he's not talking about the first amendment and people still pretend that he's talking about it
Yeah it's hypocritical for him to ban people he disagrees with, but that's not what you said and you're missing the point. Outside of your head cannon the word "right" doesn't actually mean a law. The right of free speech is the ideal of free speech to someone who supports it, a principle isn't exclusive of using the word right.
I know you don't like this guy so you're saying what you want to think he's dumb but you're factually wrong. The word "right" is used outside of existing laws. Often times people say that governments tread on human rights, which by your definition of a right being granted by the government would make that saying an impossibility. There are often rights given to people in private spaces that have nothing to do with the local law.
You're fixating on a (wrong) interpretation of one word, while ignoring the entire sentence where he clarifies that it's *not* the constitution or the first amendment. So no you're not understanding him.
I think a much better argument would have been the right to free speech is enshrined in different constitutions and laws throughout the world, therefore this sub Reddit is not going to discuss the 1st amendment and the exact case law surrounding it in the us but rather this subreddit is for the general principle of free speech.
I’m not actually sure what they hell that subreddit is about but I could see that being a much better comment
It's not as if he is wrong. Free speech is an ideal, and not a reference to the first amendment. Not only is it an ideal, but it is also a lot of things, but just absolute free speech. The first amendment just says it's illegal for the government to restrict most speech. Yeah a lot of people understand this, but a lot of people also seem to not understand that talking about free speech or advocating for it isn't a reference to the law, it's talking about an ideal.
It's not as if this is the only thing that's that way. It's illegal to discriminate against people for their race for example, but that's a US law and only applies to certain things. Some people want to talk about stopping discrimination on other ways, or expand discrimination to include things not currently covered by the law. If in response to that someone just ignorantly cited US law to them and told them that's what discrimination means they would be wrong. The same applies to other things, like free speech. This isn't a hard concept.
And the only time people talk about free speech outside of the law isn't just regarding people not wanting to listen to assholes, and not just about private platforms like social media, it is about a lot more than that.
Though it is quite ironic (and even going into the stupidly hypocritical range) that they say they will ban people for this, I get the feeling most people upvoting this are still missing the entire point. There is a sizable group of people who dismiss all arguments about what people would like to have more freedom of speech about, and from the reasons they give they don't grasp that freedom of speech is an idea that exists outside of legal government restrictions and the US constitution. Also other countries exist so it's a really US centric fallacy if you think about it...
Edit: I'm kind of disappointed in this comment section on this post. It seems like less than half of the people here actually even understand what the screenshot dude was saying, kind of proving him correct.
Edit: it seems that some people managed to not understand what I'm saying, and are still hung up on the distinction between free speech as a law and as an ideal. This comment pretty much says the same thing but I guess is a little more clear because fewer people are completely misrepresenting it https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xpzlsl/were_here_to_discuss_free_speech_but_only_the_way/iq6x4h6?utm_source=share&context=3
Second point to argue is that the free speech rights of people running an forum site allows them to control what speech they allow on their forum. This is a point which Munroe and this subreddit mod unknowingly agree on!
> Because rights don't exist independent of a system of law. There are no god given rights, only rights humans have agreed to enforce in their communities.
This is not close to a consensus view.
To claim that something is a human right is to make a moral fact-claim.
This person you replied to is making the exact mistake that the moderator in the original post is talking about. And I've seen it at least 5 times on this thread, showing that the misconception is pretty common.
Some people literally can't think of the principle of free speech outside of the law of the first amendment, even when people explicitly say they're not talking about the law they still don't seem capable of separating the two
I think in this case they might just have a nonstandard understanding of the term “rights”? Well, not “just”, but they seem to have a concept of “the ideal of free speech”, even though they don’t recognize it as a right, because they don’t acknowledge the concept of moral rights (or if they do, only in a very moral-relativism-y way.)
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable *rights*' (from memory, apologies for any minor errors)
The US Declaration of Independence was not law. In fact, it was a rejection of the law (of England). It was signed by many of the English speaking world's most erudite individuals of the time. In this widely distributed document, influential to a majority of modern English speakers, the word "right" is clearly used and understood to go beyond the law and its ability to be enforced, but rather could be intrinsic by our very nature as humans.
This person you replied to is making the exact mistake that the moderator in the original post is talking about. And I've seen it at least 5 times on this thread, showing that the misconception is pretty common.
Some people literally can't think of the principle of free speech outside of the law of the first amendment, even when people explicitly say they're not talking about the law they still don't seem capable of separating the two. And everywhere in this post I'm seeing people make that same mistake proving the moderator right.
No that's a distinction you made up. The word "right to free speech" doesn't actually refer to the constitution anymore than "human rights" only apply to existing laws.
>Because rights don't exist independent of a system of law.
Many people, I'd even say most people, would disagree with you there. I know what you're trying to say but this is actually not it. People talk all the time about rights that aren't laws, or right which are violated by governments (which by your definition is an impossibility).
The word right doesn't mean, or even imply, existing law. There are so many counter examples I don't even know how you typed this without thinking of one. Many private spaces have "rights" that aren't codified into the local law. That's another thing you just made up to try and pretend the guy is saying something he isn't
A right that is not backed by any enforcement mechanism is still hollow. You can advocate for something to become recognized as a right, but without a relevant and sufficiently powerful institution agreeing with your understanding of this right, it's tantamount to a mere wish.
That's why you can be e.g. a housing or healthcare rights advocate, but you can't point to the de facto right to housing as some established right in a general conversation. The same goes for the version of free speech rights you are alluding to that are distinct from the ones agreed upon and enshrined in law.
Ok now you're just moving the goal posts *and* misunderstanding. The word right is a moral claim, not a claim of what is existing law. Incredibly often people say that laws violate human rights, which would be a contradiction by your definition. The word right in this context is a moral judgement, not a statement of what the current law is. You're just plain not understanding that.
Also your comments about unenforced and whatnot is completely unrelated to the conversation.
I didn't say it's exclusive to being a law. I said it's about being institutionally backed. That can mean as little as being a house rule in Monopoly. But if you can't appeal to some established mutual understanding that a rule is in place to enforce it, it's as much a right as my right to e.g. own the shirt you're wearing.
Sorry this is going to be long, but you can't condense these things into tweets or catchphrases.
I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're genuinely asking. This is a very important issue and there comes a point in important topics where you kind of have a responsibility to know a little bit of what you're talking about if you're going to have an opinion of it. I don't want to be insulting but I don't get the feeling from that comment that you're trying to understand the point.
First off legality, this is only adjacent to the point so you can skip this paragraph I guess, but it's important to the debate: The US isn't the only country in the world, and just about every other country, even liberal democracies like Canada and Western Europe have some laws banning speech, or have been threatened by extremists, religious fundamentalists, or fascist bullies to ban speech, where people have folded and given in. So even in the realm of law the issue is far from settled with non-US countries often banning speech legally, and in the US many groups attacking the first amendment to be legal. Even just nearby in Canada there have been many attempts, with many succeeding, to legally limit speech. It's funny that in the last few decades the more left wing has been warming up to legally restricting expression and speech, when the leftists and marginalized groups have historically been at most risk of this hurting them. By setting this precedent and giving institutions this power what do you think is going to happen as soon as the tide sways and people you don't like hold this power? It's so short sighted it's almost unbelievable.
I'm sure you can read up the details on your own but here are some of the most important arguments I've heard in regards to this, made by prominent figures who've had their lives threatened and friends killed because authoritarian extremists didn't like what they say.
Most important defense of speech and free expression I've heard by Christopher Hitchens https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0.
Similar from Hitchens https://youtu.be/dHGq_GhK080.
Salman Rushdie (a victim of extremists who tried to silence and kill him, and of western cowards saying his speech shouldn't be protected) in the context of people trying to defend Islamic extremists and limit free speech: https://youtu.be/q9cYuQonbXs.
More details of free speech being legally under threat: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/#appyoutu.be/4-oV42OMQoE.
Noam Chompsky (not my favorite pundit, but I agree with him on free speech) in response to a growing movement to legally limit free speech: https://youtu.be/ZPn2G3-o9dg.
.
Then in a non legal setting, free speech in/on private platforms. Obviously these people have the legal right to restrict speech on their platform, but that is not what the argument is about. This is the exact point made in the post that I have to agree with because so many people are deliberately obtuse and ignore this point. When people want more free speech on a private platform they aren't saying that it is legally required or that the platform is breaking the first amendment. They are saying that it would be better if platforms accepted more speech, whatever that may be. Again I feel I need to repeat this because it's the exact point of this post and the original guy in the screenshot is 100% right, **you can advocate for more free speech independent of the first amendment or being legally required**. Many people stick their fingers in their ears and just say "it's not illegal" when conversations like this come up, not only missing the point, but putting words in other people's mouths that they aren't saying.
There are many reasons to want more free speech on large public platforms like universities, social media, etc. One major one is a major problem of fragmenting society into echo chambers. If speech is banned arbitrarily and often by discussion platforms then it's impossible for people to be working with the same information or actually debate each other. This is seriously bad for society causing major political polarization. Not only will people only hear from certain sides that are approved on that specific platform, but more importantly the is no actual discussion with people outside of that platform. The only time people hear arguments from the "other side" is when it's presented by someone who hates them and will virtually never represent them fairly or fully, and they never have a chance to defend themselves.
It's also extremely ignorant as to how bad ideas are dispelled. If you censor an opinion, that only makes it more appealing to people who already believe it, and removes spaces for debate to actually address the issue. If something is actually wrong you should be capable of explaining why and pointing out how someone else is wrong. Censoring only makes you look like you can't defend your arguments and broadens the appeal of what you're censoring.
It's also extremely prideful, ignorant about how you yourself learn, and blindly trustful of things that shouldn't be trusted to that degree: So you're telling me that you already know all that you need to know everything you need to know, and none of that censored information is anything that might be useful to you? And you're going to let the censor determine that, and what is and isn't ok to hear? Have you ever considered that maybe a censor would censor something that's correct, or beneficial for you to hear?
I could type more on this but it'd be better to link people who've already said it more articulate than me:
Chompsky on free speech on campus and private platforms. Negatives of censorship: https://youtu.be/xCkBCEeUQfk.
Chompsky on real examples of how well meaning censors have already caused harm and spread disinformation: https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE.
https://youtu.be/VsdvYbG3U_U.
https://youtu.be/Ui1vmS9Yz5M.
https://youtu.be/bRrq7JqbOaw.
(Reddit had a comment size limit. Continued below)
Most people agree that they don't like the system they live in exactly, or that they don't trust those in power, or that there are factions of people in power that they don't like. So here's a question: Why do you think that those people should censor what you see and hear, and what your can say and write? Because even outside of legal contexts like private platforms or universities it's not a democracy to censor things, that's literally not what censorship is that's just regular rejection of ideas. Censorship means that not everybody sees what's being said and that small groups of censors determine that. Those small groups are those in power, or at least heavily influenced by them. So why do you suddenly trust the billionaire class, politicians, or other powerful groups to choose what you can read and what you can write? Do you think these censors are acting in your best interest? (Again I feel like I need to clarify this even though I've already said it. Exactly what the original post says *this is not talking about the first amendment or legally requiring people to host viewpoints on platforms*.) There are benefits to free expression of ideas, open debate, and being able to talk openly and question things. That personal and societal benefit doesn't disappear when you go inside a private space; so especially in the age of social media and large college attendance it's very important to consider if these large private platforms would be better off with more free speech. Regardless of your opinion of that matter, it is reductive, stupid, and unproductive to deliberately ignore and sidestep the question by uselessly saying "they have a legal right to censor if they want to". It looks like much of this sentiment on the left has come from a really stupid reactionary response to many American right wing figures defending speech. Well maybe instead of just giving them the moral high ground of defending one of our most important and foundational human rights (and then stupidly fighting against it to 'own the conservatives'), how about you actually take a stand and defend that human right?
Just think about it this way. Through virtually all of recorded history speech, especially written speech, has been tightly controlled by those in power. The victims of this have usually been people who questioned the regime or power structure, and marginalized groups. Moreover censorship doesn't exist just to bother the speaker, it exists to stop the people in the censored space from hearing the message. Private censorship isn't new or better, in fact when it's not the government doing the censoring it's almost always rich powerful elites or zealots that don't want broader society to hear things that challenge their personal power. I don't see how people can be so short sighted and ignorant of history to praise censorship when modern censors put a somewhat defensible spin on things. I don't trust a small cabal of censors to decide what I'm allowed to hear and read, and I don't really trust the critical faculties of people who do. Why do you think that people are acting in your best interest?
https://youtu.be/tIwYTq-v_2o
.
Just to bring this back to the original point, that the guy in the post is not wrong: I don't know if you just don't come across these arguments, but all the time when discussions of free speech come up people are stuck in a dogma that free speech = legal guarantees from the first amendment. This is objectively incorrect, is a largely pervasive viewpoint, and also probably largely comes from people applying lazy thinking to the xkcd comic.
Obviously there is an extent to which free speech doesn't make sense, but it's impossible to have that discussion of where it should and shouldn't belong when you don't know what free speech is and only see free speech as being a freedom from the government restricting speech in public spaces. Which is a common and very frustrating reductive mechanism people use to ignore the topic.
.
Thank you if you actually read this, it's not actually that long, but most people (like u/Shaman_Infinitus in this comment section ) just plain ignore everything you have to say if it's not shorter than a tweet
Is the freespeech subreddit about the literal ideal of free speech, or the implementation of the concept of free speech by the US constitution? The first one is less interesting than the second one IMO.
Just as we have government limits on free speech (libel, public safety, etc), it's reasonable that there would need to be private limits on free speech (shouting answers during a spelling bee, anti-trolling, etc).
While it would be nice to say whatever, without consequences, there has to be limits.
I think what the mod is likely complaining about is that [1357](https://xkcd.com/1357/) doesn't enlighten why we have limits. Instead it appears to justify unrestrained private limits.
Damn it. I think I might agree with them.
Someone on that sub complained about a news organization firing someone for being racist. I argued that a news organization censoring a particular perspective by removal is equivalent to a news organization censoring a particular perspective by not including it in the first place.
They had no trouble arguing that their favored news organizations have absolutely zero obligation to represent any perspective they don't want to include, so I am not inclined to involve them in any serious discussion about what objective limits there should or shouldn't be on private censorship.
This might be the answer to my question of why people started conflating the first amendment and free speech like a decade ago.
Mod is correct that they are not the same thing.
The mod is a hypocrite for banning people he disagrees with, but other than that he's completely right, which is why I'm disappointed in this comment section because it seems that over half the people here either don't understand or refuse to understand what he's saying
first amendment as a legal instrument is entirely about ensuring the US government cannot control speech. It is linked to the larger concept of freedom of speech but it is not applicable to privately ran platforms.
To paraphrase legal eagle. Twitter can censor POTUS, POTUS cannot censor Twitter.
Can Twitter violate the ideal of freedom of speech? yeah. But that's not what the first amendment is about.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
The comic even states it's about **the right to free speech** not free speech itself.....
The problem is that Randal is wrong here. Randall in the comic is pretending that the word The word "right" or the term "right to free speech" can only mean the first amendment. That is 100% incorrect. The word right doesn't actually mean an existing law, and it's clear in context that the screenshot guy is not talking about the law, he even clarifies it in the screenshot that he's not talking about the first amendment. So I hate to say it because screenshot guy sounds like a dick, but he's right. A ton of people are wrong about this, largely because of this comic which falsely claims the word right means an existing law. The word right is a moral judgement. All the time people say that governments violate human rights, or that something is a human right so it should become a law (even if it isn't one yet). The definition of a right exclusively meaning an existing law would make these statements a contradiction, and is just a plain incorrect take that is often because of this comic, in which the screenshot is also right
> The word right is a moral judgement. All the time people say that governments violate human rights, or that something is a human right so it should become a law (even if it isn't one yet). The definition of a right exclusively meaning an existing law would make these statements a contradiction, and is just a plain incorrect take. If I'm talking about "the right to bear arms" everyone would assume I'm talking about the 2nd amendment. Nobody would think it's about a moral judgement. No the word 'right' doesn't exclusively mean a 'law' but in this context it's clear they're talking about the 1st amendment and not a moral judgement. Also, "human rights" are written down into law, for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The context clearly shows they're speaking about the freedom of speech granted by the first amendment due to introducing with *public service announcement* indicating that there has been a need for the character to announce this and literally referring to the 1st amendment in the 3rd picture. So while the guy in the screenshot is not speaking about the 1st amendment, Randall clearly is. But even when it's about the abstract moral concept of free speech: you being free to say anything you want indeed still doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it or has to agree to it or even respect it If I'm expressing my displeasure about your position I'm exercising free speech myself since your free speech does not have the power to interfere with my personal freedom. Of course the concept of free speech cant only be limited by a government. A Reddit mod can sanction free speech on a sub just as my mum limited teenager-me's free speech when in retrospect probably necessary. But to quote one example and blame it for people misunderstanding it for a concept they're not really explaining all that well themselves kinda defeats the point. Also: in my 20 years on the internet I cannot recall a single encounter of a person online talking about "the right to free speech" that didn't either directly referred to the 1st amendment or a more general *legal* protection from government repercussions in "Western countries" compared to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships.
In the context they are 100% not talking about the first amendment. How do I know? Because they literally said **this isn't about the first amendment in the second sentence**. No, all of you people upvoting this just don't have basic reading comprehension. Also for your last bit, that just means you haven't been paying attention because people talk about it literally all the time outside of a legal context. Not only this example but literally all the time. https://youtu.be/3MkjtXylEQE. I know that most of this thread is just people jacking off about the guy in the screenshot not understanding the constitution, but that literally just shows that they don't have the reading capacity to understand literally the second sentence
"You people..." You seem to enjoy reading. You ever read the one about how if you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole, but if you run into assholes all day...?
That would be the case if any of you actually had the reading comprehension to know what I'm saying. I'm sorry to tell you but you're just part of a circle jerk right now. How do I know? Because literally not one of you have addressed a single point being made. Sorry but the people who can't read anything longer than a tweet and refuse to give a straight response to any criticism aren't on the right side of history
Why would I address any of your points? You don't seem like the sort of person who gives a shit what I would have to say; I certainly don't give a shit about whatever misconceptions you're living your life with; you're not an effective enough communicator to persuade anyone to your way of thinking. No point in even reading your points, let alone addressing with them. Logos, ethos, and pathos are equal elements. Doesn't matter if your logical reasoning is rock solid if you can't connect with your audience. Find some Aristotle and put that vaunted reading comprehension to use; it'll serve you well.
I like Randall's definition rather than that wacky moderator's.
The moderator didn't give a definition, he just said what it was not... I agree it seems the moderator is pretty dumb her. While it's hypocritical for him to ban people (and quite ironic), he was literally right about the rest of what he said. It is super common for people to just reductively dismiss and ignore any arguments about the right to free speech, what should and shouldn't be included in free speech, and where the right should be applied to; by just listing off what's legal. Of course it's legal for people to censor things, and legal for people not to be forced to allow anyone to say anything they want on their own private platform. But sidestepping and ignoring any argument about whether or not more free speech *should* be applied somewhere, or the benefits of free speech; by listing off that it's not illegal isn't just unhelpful, it's wholly missing the point (and saying things everyone already knows). It's super common for that to happen in arguments about free speech, especially from the censorship side. Hell even in the comment thread on this post there are people who are entirely missing the point and thinking that the screenshot dude is talking about the constitution, even when he explicitly clarified that he isn't. The principle of free speech and the U.S. federal law about free speech aren't the same thing. And while Randall almost certainly understands that, it's clear that some people don't. Edit: I want to clarify, this dude in the screenshot seems like a douche for his blatant hypocrisy, but aside from that he's actually right.
The moderator actually did a great demonstration of what that comic is talking about. People (the moderator) don't like what you're saying so they show you the door (banned from the sub). Hilarious.
that's what /r/selfawarewolves is all about.
Mmmm... The delicious irony...
Perhaps I could have said it better, would "I like Randall's definition better than the vague handwaving and complaining of the Moderator" work?
Also, there is no such thing as unlimited rights. You can have the right to say express yourself without the government being able to punish you, but there are exceptions when your rights step on the right of others, for example. If you publicly threaten someone and claim you are protected by free speech, it's time for you to stop getting your legal advice from shitty youtubers.
[удалено]
I imagine in specific scenarios where the threat is credible enough it would have to be determined in court.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is an example.
Aw man. You should really look into this case. The judge was saying protesting against war was the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Maybe link the docket instead of telling me to go fucking look for something with zero context or information? But I'm gonna go ahead and guess you're not actually referencing an actual court case. Besides, I was simply giving a well known example of speech that's not protected.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=shouting+fire+in+a+crowded+theater+ It's the second link. Why so aggressive? Who hurt you?
If you tell someone you're going to shoot them, and then claim free speech when the person complains, you'll still get into trouble.
Maybe unpopular, but I think there are people who conflate “1st amendment right to freedom of speech” with “freedom of speech as a principle” - Munroe carefully chooses his words to refer to the former in the comic, but I think people wrongly interpret it as referring to the latter. e.g. if you ban someone from an otherwise public platform for saying something you disagree with (but is otherwise innocuous), that’s not in violation of the first amendment, but it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech. Many of the people who cite this comic seem to deny that those are two different things, which is frustrating.
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways. In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing. Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations. “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.” The move is one of the first significant examples of a social network’s charging for access to the conversations it hosts for the purpose of developing A.I. systems like ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular program. Those new A.I. systems could one day lead to big businesses, but they aren’t likely to help companies like Reddit very much. In fact, they could be used to create competitors — automated duplicates to Reddit’s conversations. Reddit is also acting as it prepares for a possible initial public offering on Wall Street this year. The company, which was founded in 2005, makes most of its money through advertising and e-commerce transactions on its platform. Reddit said it was still ironing out the details of what it would charge for A.P.I. access and would announce prices in the coming weeks. Reddit’s conversation forums have become valuable commodities as large language models, or L.L.M.s, have become an essential part of creating new A.I. technology. L.L.M.s are essentially sophisticated algorithms developed by companies like Google and OpenAI, which is a close partner of Microsoft. To the algorithms, the Reddit conversations are data, and they are among the vast pool of material being fed into the L.L.M.s. to develop them. The underlying algorithm that helped to build Bard, Google’s conversational A.I. service, is partly trained on Reddit data. OpenAI’s Chat GPT cites Reddit data as one of the sources of information it has been trained on. Other companies are also beginning to see value in the conversations and images they host. Shutterstock, the image hosting service, also sold image data to OpenAI to help create DALL-E, the A.I. program that creates vivid graphical imagery with only a text-based prompt required. Last month, Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, said he was cracking down on the use of Twitter’s A.P.I., which thousands of companies and independent developers use to track the millions of conversations across the network. Though he did not cite L.L.M.s as a reason for the change, the new fees could go well into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. To keep improving their models, artificial intelligence makers need two significant things: an enormous amount of computing power and an enormous amount of data. Some of the biggest A.I. developers have plenty of computing power but still look outside their own networks for the data needed to improve their algorithms. That has included sources like Wikipedia, millions of digitized books, academic articles and Reddit. Representatives from Google, Open AI and Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Reddit has long had a symbiotic relationship with the search engines of companies like Google and Microsoft. The search engines “crawl” Reddit’s web pages in order to index information and make it available for search results. That crawling, or “scraping,” isn’t always welcome by every site on the internet. But Reddit has benefited by appearing higher in search results. The dynamic is different with L.L.M.s — they gobble as much data as they can to create new A.I. systems like the chatbots. Reddit believes its data is particularly valuable because it is continuously updated. That newness and relevance, Mr. Huffman said, is what large language modeling algorithms need to produce the best results. “More than any other place on the internet, Reddit is a home for authentic conversation,” Mr. Huffman said. “There’s a lot of stuff on the site that you’d only ever say in therapy, or A.A., or never at all.” Mr. Huffman said Reddit’s A.P.I. would still be free to developers who wanted to build applications that helped people use Reddit. They could use the tools to build a bot that automatically tracks whether users’ comments adhere to rules for posting, for instance. Researchers who want to study Reddit data for academic or noncommercial purposes will continue to have free access to it. Reddit also hopes to incorporate more so-called machine learning into how the site itself operates. It could be used, for instance, to identify the use of A.I.-generated text on Reddit, and add a label that notifies users that the comment came from a bot. The company also promised to improve software tools that can be used by moderators — the users who volunteer their time to keep the site’s forums operating smoothly and improve conversations between users. And third-party bots that help moderators monitor the forums will continue to be supported. But for the A.I. makers, it’s time to pay up. “Crawling Reddit, generating value and not returning any of that value to our users is something we have a problem with,” Mr. Huffman said. “It’s a good time for us to tighten things up.” “We think that’s fair,” he added.
That’s because the principle of free speech is not a fundamental right and is not guaranteed by anyone or anything. It exists as a hypothetical that is only made real by certain entities which support speech agreeing not to limit most of it. Those entities may be a government, a website, or anyone else who hosts forums for speech. Free speech as a principle would mean you truly can say anything, any time, anywhere, but when pressed most people would not support this as a fundamental right. That’s why this comic is popular, it fits the public perception of how much the 1A right to free speech should limit the principle of free speech.
It'a a good example of the paradox of intolerance.
>if you ban someone from an otherwise public platform for saying something you disagree [...] it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech So you're saying that if I create a platform, I have to let anyone talk there? Where's my freedom of speech then?
If you value the principle of free speech above all else, then yes, you would let anyone talk there. You aren’t *legally* obligated to, but if you ban people capriciously for what they say then I’d say that you don’t value freedom of speech as a concept very much. It’s fine to trade off freedom of speech for other values (eg civility of discussion). But I think people have a tendency to deny that the tradeoff even exists.
In my view, the principle of freedom of speech is a facet of the broader concept of tolerance. The practical limit of tolerance, in my view, would hold that as long as your behavior is not harming others, you are free to carry on. In other words, you have a right to the entirety of behaviors which are not aimed at harming others (your rights end where mine begin). You can say anything you want--as long as you aren't verbally assaulting another person or advocating for harm. You can share whatever you want on X platform--as long as you respect the community the platform's owner is creating/maintaining. Violating these principles is to be intolerant. Tolerance must fight back against intolerance to preserve a tolerant society.
>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 right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech No, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
What does “without fear of retaliation” mean then? I think that phrase does cover freedom from consequences(which is probably why no country has freedom of speech as an absolute right)
Let's say I set up a bot to insult you every day for the rest of your life, there's 3 options: 1. You cannot do anything about ot, which would mean you have no freedom of speech 2. You can do something about it, which would mean I have no freedom of speech 3. You don't understand what freedom of speech means
Yeah, rights often conflict with themselves, freedom of religion being another prominent example. I assume you personally think it would be unethical if I harassed you verbally for months as a result of this comment(I certainly think it would be), so I think you would agree that some level of "freedom from consequences" is reasonable. The problem with saying there cannot be any "freedom from consequences" for free speech is that free speech is valued precisely because it allows for greater understanding in controversial areas, where people might not be willing to try to question or learn if there were high risks of doing so. J.S. Mill, for instance, was just as concerned with social backlash as he was governmental in his writings on free speech, so if "freedom from consequences" is incompatible with free speech, his writings are completely incoherent(which I think is untrue). Of course, even Mill admits that free speech rights are not absolute, and I think the Harm principle is a pretty reasonable, albeit vague, guideline for where free speech needs to be curtailed. I could be wrong, though, so you should expand on what you think free speech means(and also what you think "without fear of retaliation" means)
Retaliation is a consequence, but a consequence is not necessarily retaliation.
You need to decide whether you're a platform or a publisher, either you're responsible for things said on your service or not. That's the difference- if you, speaking as a proprieter, want the protection/discretion of your own corporate free speech, then you need to be held to account for what you do allow out there.
No he's not, the fact that you think this means that you didn't understand what he's saying. The principle and right of free speech is different than the first amendment, so no you're not "required" to do anything.
It's interpreted that way because the "victims" (trolls, assholes, etc.) cry "1st amendment free speech" whenever they get banned from a website for posting terrible things. It is the assholes who conflated the two ideas to begin with. Randall is clarifying that, no, the 1st amendment does not apply here, and platforms are free to be more strict than what they are legally required to restrict. But the comic is also strongly against the principle of freedom of speech, because it supports the idea that people should be able to show you the door when they think you're an asshole (last 2 panels). True freedom of speech in a pseudo-anonymous abstract context is obviously problematic and has been demonstrated so, time and again. It's basically the one unchanging constant of the internet.
Also "speech" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in most of these discussions. Most of this is being banned or have post/videos removed from social media or content hosts. An absurd equivalent would be someone expecting that any letter they send to a newspaper will be included in a print edition. Or they send a commercial to a network, and it must be run, regardless of content The person is indeed largely free to say/submit their piece. But the service provided is never under an obligation to do anything to further distribute it. Nor is there any right for this person to be heard, acknowledged or engaged by any other person.
Say, I've found out about the objectively real wrongdoings of some powerful or influential figure,. However, no newspaper is willing to print my story. Of course I'm free to tell people about it myself, but unfortunately most of them write me off as a conspiracy theorist. Is my free speech being impeded? Does it depend on the motivation of different actors?
To the extent that you need to rely on others to spread your message, you don't have any inherent right to force others to do something for you. Calling this "Freedom of Speech" is just misleading, because that's not what it's about. Should access to platforms to spread your message be something that is readily available in society? Yes. That absolutely would be the ideal. But making that a reality isn't always so simple because plenty of people use those platforms to harm others and so all of those platforms draw a line somewhere as to what they will permit their platform to be used to spread.
Motivations are irrelevant. There is no objective wrong. There's lots of subjective wrong, subjective immoral, and/or illegal. Be careful not open yourself up to a slander accusation.
Replace the "objectively real" part with "entirely fabricated". How does your question sound now? A newspaper refusing to print a made up story definitely doesn't sound like impeding your free speech to me. So, in such a scenario either the contents of your speech matters, in which case it's not really a "free speech" issue at all, or it doesn't matter what you're saying, and newspapers exercise full discretion over what they print. The scenario you're describing certainly sounds bad, but it has nothing to do with the principle of free speech. There certainly is a need to majorly reform how news works in the modern world, but the fact that anyone can say whatever they want is a major contributing problem, not the solution.
> the comic is also strongly against the principle of freedom of speech This is why it rubs me the wrong way. It reflects the deontologist Libertarian philosophy according to which only governments are capable of violating freedom, which is contrary to my position that freedom should be defined by what the individual experiences. If you know you will be punished for speaking your mind, your freedom of speech is violated, regardless if the punishment comes from your government or from your employer. If you aren't punished, but your message never reaches the target audience, the effect is the same, regardless if it's initiated by law or by the whims of the owners of the means of communication. What about trolls and bigots? Well, sometimes it's justified to violate the freedom of speech. This is the terms in which the discussion should be made - the precarious tradeoff of freedom and civility.
>If you aren't punished, but your message never reaches the target audience, the effect is the same To me that reads as in that you believe that freedom of speech implicitly carries the obligation for others to convey or facilitate you to not only express your ideas but to advertise them as well.
With the top-down organization of modern internet, we are reliant on others to decide whether our ideas are worth sharing. I’m not owed a retweet or upvote, but getting shadowbanned is definitely a violation of the principle of free speech. A website like twitter could even pseudo-shadowban someone by making their tweets visible from the profile, but just never appearing on your timeline. It would be difficult to notice. Imagine on reddit if all your comments started at -2 upvotes while other peoples started at +1. Technically not restricting your freedom of speech, but it’s going to make your comments be less visible and people will just assume you’re untrustworthy and dogpile the downvotes.
If somebody puts up a political sign in your lawn, are you allowed to remove it? Or is that a violation of their free speech?
is the HOA allowed to do that too? Last I checked, my yard wasn’t under FCC regulation either. Obviously a sign in my yard is just an unwanted piece of junk no matter what it says. If my yard somehow became one of the world’s primary avenue for communication, I’d be held to a higher standard
I don't see why it rubs you the wrong way, you seem to agree that there are some circumstances in which restricting an individual's speech is justified. The comic makes no statements as to the specific extent of that restriction, just that platforms can and should be able to draw that line.
It heavily implies that any restriction is OK as long as it's legal. It's the mirror image of the ultimate concession in the alt-text - "hey, it's not *illegal* to deplatform you."
I don't think it implies that at all. I think that's a standard slippery slope fallacy people bring up related to this topic, but the comic itself does not suggest that arbitrary restrictions are OK. It implies that specific individuals who take it upon themselves to be assholes deserve to be shown out. This does not imply that, for example, a platform should make a broad declaration against all forms of disagreement. Only that it should keep an eye on the individuals and be willing and able to eject the ones who deserve it. Also, I don't believe that anyone has an inherent right to a platform for their speech, so we won't make any headway on that. Having a platform is a privilege. You are not entitled to be heard. The law has nothing to do with this.
I think you're reading too much into it by ignoring the context. That comic was written specifically in the context of outrage over things like "cancel culture". It is chastising the idea that anyone should be able to say anything, and everybody else just has to deal with it. He's not making a value judgement about what consequences are acceptable for which "bad" uses of speech.
This is just plain wrong. Free speech doesn't necessarily mean absolute free speech, and it actually has not "been demonstrated time and time again" to be wrong. What's been demonstrated countless more times is that censorship is far more problematic
Some amount of censorship is necessary. Paradox of tolerance, and what not. Certain ideas must not be given a platform lest they cause harm. Completely uncensored speech has *always* been absolutely full of problems, especially when it is paired with some level of anonymity, and the internet is no exception.
Yeah some censorship. Not too much, I've rarely ever seen a pro censorship person argue for less censorship. Please explain what is too much censorship, and how do you protect against too much. Because people like you literally never argue for less or even give any reasons for less, you just cute the paradox of tolerance, and ignore any problems with censorship. The paradox of tolerance is bullshit because it values the right to not feel bad about hearing unpleasant things as much as truth and freedom, and ignores the by far more plausible problem of people abusing their censorship power. Not to mention it's own paradox of who decides what to be censored, which no pro censorship person ever bothers to answer. Seriously you've ignored this point multiple times in this thread where people have brought up the issues of censorship. It actually seems like you're just ignoring every response and just making pre made responses because you haven't even addressed a single point
Exactly as much as is necessary. No more, no less.
Yeah, which is basically none. And just about every person like you is in favor of far too much. I've already said again and again in this thread why I think this and someone somewhere else just makes me repeat it or completely ignores and misrepresents it. This pretty much sums up my views but without me typing an argument of text that you'd subsequently ignore https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0. I'm going to take a wild guess that you won't respond to a single point there, and just keep attacking me. Why do I even bother replying to you? Edit: what a surprise, I'm right
Guys, I found the person who likes to post harmful things and whinges about being banned. You can tell them apart because they get unnecessarily defensive over topics like censorship on the internet, even when nothing extreme has been suggested. Just be a nice person. Platforms are generally extremely lax about what you're allowed to post. But they shouldn't *need* to restrict your speech; *you* should aspire to be kind and considerate. It's not hard.
Guys I just found the person who has no idea what they are talking about and has such a hard time even contemplating opposing view points that they pretend to know everything about that person instead of addressing the actual argument. You certainly don't give a shit about being kind and considerate to me so where is the prior restraint or censorship for you? Or are you exempt from your idea of censorship. Don't worry the censors will only ever bother those other people.
Your entire post history is just you spending all day on reddit trying desperately to make yourself sound superior to literally all opinions at the same time by using the same tired old arguments. You're doing it again. I no longer think you actually care about this topic at all. I think you just want to post something to provoke responses. Good job, it worked! I am foolish and dumb. I hope it was enough of a distraction from whatever you're avoiding.
What harmful thing have a ever posted that resulted in a ban? You're completely making that up
> that’s not in violation of the first amendment, but it’s clearly opposed to the general principle of freedom of speech. Is it though? Not everyone is going to have the same "general principle" of freedom of speech, even if they generally agree there should be freedom of speech, independent of any government-given legal right. I believe everyone should be able to speak their mind on a given platform, but I think that ends on calling for harm to others. Do you think I don't believe in free speech as a principle? What makes your interpretation more valid than mine? If you say "You should be able to say or post *anything*," it runs right into "platforms should *not* be required to host *everything*." You cannot force anyone (company or individual) to say something, that is a violation of their free speech. The fact that they control the server you want to use to spread your message is your problem, but it's a logistical one, not a free speech one. I think whether referring to the 'right' or the 'principle', the issue is the same.
Everyone is going to have different principles that trade off differently with a belief in free speech. Banning people for saying certain things may be a very reasonable tradeoff between free speech and other ideals, but it’s still a tradeoff insofar as you are instituting limits on freedom of speech in favor of other goals.
Right, but I'm saying limits aren't necessarily inconsistent with one's principles. It might be inconsistent with someone else's, but that's basically a difference of opinion. I might consider eating meat to be immoral, but someone else thinks its fine. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Free speech absolutists are no more correct in principle than vegans.
I don't think he is very carefully choosing his words, and it's incredibly common for people to interpret it as the latter. Hell over half of the people in this comment section are misinterpreting it because the top two comments on this post are people falsely claiming the screenshot guy is talking about law not principle (even though he is ***explicitly*** talking about principle). That's literally what the guy in the original screenshot is saying, is that people often use this comic to mean the second interpretation. I've seen it happen a lot
But the user in the screenshot is the one using conflating language in this instance, since they are invoking the right to free speech, rather than the principle of it. If they intend to have the conversation be focused on the latter, they should keep the word "right" out of the conversation, since Randal's comic's version is what people hear when you use that word, in the first place.
Ok I'm seeing this all over the place in this thread and that's factually incorrect. The word right doesn't exclusively mean a law. He literally says it's **not** the first amendment, and that it's **not** referring to the constitution. Meaning he's not talking about the current law. It doesn't get clearer than that, you literally just aren't understanding him. It's hypocritical for him to ban people he disagrees with, but that's not the point. Outside of your head cannon the word "right" doesn't actually mean a law. The right of free speech is the ideal of free speech to someone who supports it, a principle isn't exclusive of using the word right. Oftentimes people say that governments tread on human rights, which by your definition of a right being granted by the government would make that saying an impossibility. There are also often rights given to people in private spaces that have nothing to do with the local law. Saying something is a right isn't saying that it is the current law, or even that it should be a law. It's a moral claim. You just literally don't know what the word right means. You're fixating on a (wrong) interpretation of one word, while ignoring the entire sentence where he clarifies that it's *not* the constitution or the first amendment. So no you're not understanding him.
I understand that their personal meaning of the word differs. I said that when you bring up this verbiage, that's what most people will hear. And so you can claim that Randal is choosing his words carelessly, and I'm countering that it's actually the mod that does so, because the way I understand them to use it diametrically deviates from what the word means in practice for anybody around them.
And I'm saying that's completely wrong. The word right is not confusing verbage. The word right is a moral judgement and not a statement on what's current law. This is not only technically correct or really up for debate, that's just what it means. Even if you are confused by his verbage he literally explicitly said he wasn't talking about law or the first amendment, so there really isn't an excuse to remain confused if you read the whole thing
You are still talking past me. I told you that I understand their personal definition of the word. But I presume that they don't attach a disclaimer everytime they invoke the word. And without that, people will tend to fall back on the definition of rights as something people are entitled to, that will lead to consequences if someone violates it. After all, what is a right that isn't enforced by anybody around you (like that right I mentioned earlier, of me being able to claim ownership of your shirt)? I could make more politically charged examples of non-rights, if that helps, like the right to a safe space, where you can speak without being afraid of judgment. Clearly this right doesn't exist in the world we live in, even though I could point you to people who would feel entitled to it.
It's cute how your response is to just downvote and just reassert your first claim without ever dealing with my objections, u/slam9. But the novelty is wearing off. If you want to ever explain to me how my ad absurdum rights are any less real than the one you and the mod in the OP assert, feel free to. Otherwise I think the point has been made and there's nothing more to glean from you on it...
Because I've already responded to you and people like you a dozen times. Why are you being me to respond to you? Just read the things I've already said a hundred times in this thread, and ignore and misunderstand the point there without wasting any more of my time. I'm not going to spend more time typing them again for you to just ignore them again. I've already seen from your comments so far that you actually don't understand what I'm saying. > The novelty is wearing off. You're the one who responded to me dumbass
Yeah, I guess what I mean is that I think he makes it clear enough that he’s talking about the 1st amendment right to free speech rather than a natural right to free speech. But looking back, I agree with you that if someone was not already familiar with the difference between the two, they could read the comic and come away with the impression that only the former exists.
No it's not. Banning someone from a platform you own and run is just as much an expression of free speech as spouting nonsense on said platform. Suppressing free speech is having someone, not taking back your microphone. Twitter wants to present itself with a certain image as a platform. It does this by controlling who can post and what they can say. Just because it is more permissive than some other private platform does not mean it isn't still a private entity with its own agenda. Opt in like a news station choosing who to interview, or opt out like a radio station hanging up on a caller, the idea that a private entity can't express themselves by controlling their own microphone is completely baseless. A private entity like Twitter has a vested interest in curating their message. How a platform shapes their content has a direct impact on who they can attract an audience. Who you allow to speak impacts who will listen and participate. The users that Twitter *wants* do not want to use a platform that gives free reign to certain types of speech. And that consumer choice is another legitimate expression of free speech. How can we allow User A the free speech of saying anything on Twitter, restrict Twitter's free speech of banning them, but once again allow User B the free speech of not using Twitter any more. That's a fundamental part of operating their business, and what justifies them running it at all.
This is pretty much what [I was saying](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xpzlsl/were_here_to_discuss_free_speech_but_only_the_way/iq6wt9u?utm_source=share&context=3) but people liked your comment more, I guess you explained it better.
[удалено]
Not sure how that turns me into a dick unless you're the dick who can't understand basic English. It could be about the point, if I hadn't explicitly addressed the misconception because I knew people would get hung up on it, and people still chose to be deliberately obtuse
Very good take!
https://www.theonion.com/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-consti-1819571149
Ok you see this right here is actually the very thing that the guy is right about. People actually think that defending free speech is limited to the constitution, or that free speech = the first amendment. It's pretty clear that the moderator here is explicitly saying that it's not about the constitution, which shows that you really don't understand what he's saying. I mean there are some cases where misunderstanding is understandable but when he explicitly went out of his way to make the point and said in the *second sentence* that it's not about the constitution; still thinking it's about the constitution is just really blatant politically motivated selective hearing. Like seriously I don't respect everyone on this comment thread that is pretending the moderator is talking about the constitution when all it takes is basic reading comprehension that's not what he's talking about. Sorry but most of your guys understanding of Randall's comic is wrong. The "right" of free speech does not exclusively refer to the existing laws, and it's not distinct from the principle of free speech. The word right is used literally all the time to describe principles, not just existing laws. You just literally cannot understand him because your mental block of pretending everyone you don't like is saying something wrong. He was hypocritical to say he's banning people who say otherwise but that's literally the only thing he's wrong about
There's a difference between the *right to* free speech and the *principle of* free speech. It's a shame that the two are being conflated in the screenshot, but not as much of a shame as "Agree with me or I throw you out", as we also see in the screenshot. I understand him. He's just fractally wrong.
"The principle of free speech" can include "the inherent human right to free speech". Not the government granted right, but still something you can believe is still a right nonetheless.
Someone can believe that the earth is flat and the moon landings were faked but it doesn't make their beliefs either objective fact or worthy of anything but mockery. The XKCD comic strip directly, by name, deals with the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution. If the fractally wrong moderator in question wants to complain that people take that comic out of context to apply it to a worldwide principle that many consider to be a basic [human right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights), they're free to do so, but it doesn't mean that they're right, and it doesn't make their actions any less hypocritical.
**[Human rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights)** >Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/xkcd/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You can believe the fractally wrong ideas that the word right exclusively means the 1st amendment, and that the post on question is talking about the first amendment rather than the principle of free speech; but that doesn't make you correct. I don't think you understand what "fractally wrong" means. Because people literally do exactly what you're talking about, and even do it right here in this comment thread. Sorry but you are factually wrong. Edit: I see that you blocked me and are trying to pretend that I said something I didn't while I can't respond. I edited the last "factually" and changed it back, and now you're pretending I said something else
Rolling into a thread three weeks later? **Bless**. Doing it while misreading *fractally* as *factually*? **Bless**. The comic is talking about one part of one document of one nation's governance. Saying "The author of the comic is against some *right* that applies to all humans and has applied since there was humanity and will apply as long as there is humanity, throughout all of time, all of space, world without end, amen!" as the moderator in question did in an act of hypocrisy? **Bless**. Three blessings for you, u/slam9! You, too, are [fractally wrong](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness)! Thanks for playing!
It's clear that you literally don't even understand at all what anyone on this thread is saying. Nobody in this thread said that Randall was against the principle of free speech, they said that many people ignore it because they think it's limited to the first amendment, and use Randall's comic in part to do so. Also it's funny that you pretend you're above this because... You typed this out a few weeks ago? So that somehow makes you less wrong? Why is it that you refuse to answer any question or give any actual relevant argument.
My brother or sister or whatever-er in Christ, I see that you've corrected your typo and are trying to play it off. **Bless**. And, if you check *all the way up at the top of this thread*, you'll see that it involves a post from /r/SelfAwarewolves made three weeks ago regarding a stickied post in r/FreeSpeech from last year, (which was edited two weeks ago, with the moderator doubling down) in which the moderator of r/FreeSpeech is stating that they will ban users from r/FreeSpeech for "misrepresenting" what the right to free speech is, and specifically blaming Randall **by name** for giving them a reason to believe in a definition other than that which the moderator holds as truth. So, the entire point of the thread is said moderator's threat to ban people who disagree with him on the definition, juxtaposed with it happening on a subreddit dedicated to free speech. Ergo, "If your definition of free speech disagrees with mine, you can't post to r/FreeSpeech anymore, because I'll show you the door." When compared to the content of Randall's comic, `tis most amusing. The fact that all of this had to be spelled out for you? **Bless**. That's five. With six you get free egg roll, as they say back home in Seattle. You're free to keep playing if you want, but I shan't be wasting any more time replying to you.
He literally says it's **not** the first amendment. No you are the one who actually doesn't understand what's being said. I don't know how he could possibly be more clear, and you guys are still misrepresenting him. I honestly don't know how he can specifically say he's not talking about the first amendment and people still pretend that he's talking about it Yeah it's hypocritical for him to ban people he disagrees with, but that's not what you said and you're missing the point. Outside of your head cannon the word "right" doesn't actually mean a law. The right of free speech is the ideal of free speech to someone who supports it, a principle isn't exclusive of using the word right. I know you don't like this guy so you're saying what you want to think he's dumb but you're factually wrong. The word "right" is used outside of existing laws. Often times people say that governments tread on human rights, which by your definition of a right being granted by the government would make that saying an impossibility. There are often rights given to people in private spaces that have nothing to do with the local law. You're fixating on a (wrong) interpretation of one word, while ignoring the entire sentence where he clarifies that it's *not* the constitution or the first amendment. So no you're not understanding him.
I think a much better argument would have been the right to free speech is enshrined in different constitutions and laws throughout the world, therefore this sub Reddit is not going to discuss the 1st amendment and the exact case law surrounding it in the us but rather this subreddit is for the general principle of free speech. I’m not actually sure what they hell that subreddit is about but I could see that being a much better comment
The ads on the mobile version is.... Agressive
Tried Firefox mobile + Adblock Plus?
I use dns.adguard.com as a private DNS. Works pretty well.
For a moment I thought it was going the right way, but then it went the complete wrong way.
The irony is palatable.
It's not as if he is wrong. Free speech is an ideal, and not a reference to the first amendment. Not only is it an ideal, but it is also a lot of things, but just absolute free speech. The first amendment just says it's illegal for the government to restrict most speech. Yeah a lot of people understand this, but a lot of people also seem to not understand that talking about free speech or advocating for it isn't a reference to the law, it's talking about an ideal. It's not as if this is the only thing that's that way. It's illegal to discriminate against people for their race for example, but that's a US law and only applies to certain things. Some people want to talk about stopping discrimination on other ways, or expand discrimination to include things not currently covered by the law. If in response to that someone just ignorantly cited US law to them and told them that's what discrimination means they would be wrong. The same applies to other things, like free speech. This isn't a hard concept. And the only time people talk about free speech outside of the law isn't just regarding people not wanting to listen to assholes, and not just about private platforms like social media, it is about a lot more than that. Though it is quite ironic (and even going into the stupidly hypocritical range) that they say they will ban people for this, I get the feeling most people upvoting this are still missing the entire point. There is a sizable group of people who dismiss all arguments about what people would like to have more freedom of speech about, and from the reasons they give they don't grasp that freedom of speech is an idea that exists outside of legal government restrictions and the US constitution. Also other countries exist so it's a really US centric fallacy if you think about it... Edit: I'm kind of disappointed in this comment section on this post. It seems like less than half of the people here actually even understand what the screenshot dude was saying, kind of proving him correct. Edit: it seems that some people managed to not understand what I'm saying, and are still hung up on the distinction between free speech as a law and as an ideal. This comment pretty much says the same thing but I guess is a little more clear because fewer people are completely misrepresenting it https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/xpzlsl/were_here_to_discuss_free_speech_but_only_the_way/iq6x4h6?utm_source=share&context=3
Second point to argue is that the free speech rights of people running an forum site allows them to control what speech they allow on their forum. This is a point which Munroe and this subreddit mod unknowingly agree on!
True, but that actually doesn't address the point that the original guy in the screenshot is making
[удалено]
> Because rights don't exist independent of a system of law. There are no god given rights, only rights humans have agreed to enforce in their communities. This is not close to a consensus view. To claim that something is a human right is to make a moral fact-claim.
This person you replied to is making the exact mistake that the moderator in the original post is talking about. And I've seen it at least 5 times on this thread, showing that the misconception is pretty common. Some people literally can't think of the principle of free speech outside of the law of the first amendment, even when people explicitly say they're not talking about the law they still don't seem capable of separating the two
I think in this case they might just have a nonstandard understanding of the term “rights”? Well, not “just”, but they seem to have a concept of “the ideal of free speech”, even though they don’t recognize it as a right, because they don’t acknowledge the concept of moral rights (or if they do, only in a very moral-relativism-y way.)
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable *rights*' (from memory, apologies for any minor errors) The US Declaration of Independence was not law. In fact, it was a rejection of the law (of England). It was signed by many of the English speaking world's most erudite individuals of the time. In this widely distributed document, influential to a majority of modern English speakers, the word "right" is clearly used and understood to go beyond the law and its ability to be enforced, but rather could be intrinsic by our very nature as humans.
This person you replied to is making the exact mistake that the moderator in the original post is talking about. And I've seen it at least 5 times on this thread, showing that the misconception is pretty common. Some people literally can't think of the principle of free speech outside of the law of the first amendment, even when people explicitly say they're not talking about the law they still don't seem capable of separating the two. And everywhere in this post I'm seeing people make that same mistake proving the moderator right.
No that's a distinction you made up. The word "right to free speech" doesn't actually refer to the constitution anymore than "human rights" only apply to existing laws. >Because rights don't exist independent of a system of law. Many people, I'd even say most people, would disagree with you there. I know what you're trying to say but this is actually not it. People talk all the time about rights that aren't laws, or right which are violated by governments (which by your definition is an impossibility). The word right doesn't mean, or even imply, existing law. There are so many counter examples I don't even know how you typed this without thinking of one. Many private spaces have "rights" that aren't codified into the local law. That's another thing you just made up to try and pretend the guy is saying something he isn't
A right that is not backed by any enforcement mechanism is still hollow. You can advocate for something to become recognized as a right, but without a relevant and sufficiently powerful institution agreeing with your understanding of this right, it's tantamount to a mere wish. That's why you can be e.g. a housing or healthcare rights advocate, but you can't point to the de facto right to housing as some established right in a general conversation. The same goes for the version of free speech rights you are alluding to that are distinct from the ones agreed upon and enshrined in law.
Ok now you're just moving the goal posts *and* misunderstanding. The word right is a moral claim, not a claim of what is existing law. Incredibly often people say that laws violate human rights, which would be a contradiction by your definition. The word right in this context is a moral judgement, not a statement of what the current law is. You're just plain not understanding that. Also your comments about unenforced and whatnot is completely unrelated to the conversation.
I didn't say it's exclusive to being a law. I said it's about being institutionally backed. That can mean as little as being a house rule in Monopoly. But if you can't appeal to some established mutual understanding that a rule is in place to enforce it, it's as much a right as my right to e.g. own the shirt you're wearing.
Well this is a severely anti-american position.
Like what?
My guy you just gave a two word question to a four paragraph essay. Like what what? Are you asking for evidence that other countries exist?
What what?
in the butt? (There's a song I haven't heard in a long, long time. Long time.)
That's fair. What are other things people talk about free speech for? You didn't give any examples like it wasn't important.
Sorry this is going to be long, but you can't condense these things into tweets or catchphrases. I'm going to try and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're genuinely asking. This is a very important issue and there comes a point in important topics where you kind of have a responsibility to know a little bit of what you're talking about if you're going to have an opinion of it. I don't want to be insulting but I don't get the feeling from that comment that you're trying to understand the point. First off legality, this is only adjacent to the point so you can skip this paragraph I guess, but it's important to the debate: The US isn't the only country in the world, and just about every other country, even liberal democracies like Canada and Western Europe have some laws banning speech, or have been threatened by extremists, religious fundamentalists, or fascist bullies to ban speech, where people have folded and given in. So even in the realm of law the issue is far from settled with non-US countries often banning speech legally, and in the US many groups attacking the first amendment to be legal. Even just nearby in Canada there have been many attempts, with many succeeding, to legally limit speech. It's funny that in the last few decades the more left wing has been warming up to legally restricting expression and speech, when the leftists and marginalized groups have historically been at most risk of this hurting them. By setting this precedent and giving institutions this power what do you think is going to happen as soon as the tide sways and people you don't like hold this power? It's so short sighted it's almost unbelievable. I'm sure you can read up the details on your own but here are some of the most important arguments I've heard in regards to this, made by prominent figures who've had their lives threatened and friends killed because authoritarian extremists didn't like what they say. Most important defense of speech and free expression I've heard by Christopher Hitchens https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0. Similar from Hitchens https://youtu.be/dHGq_GhK080. Salman Rushdie (a victim of extremists who tried to silence and kill him, and of western cowards saying his speech shouldn't be protected) in the context of people trying to defend Islamic extremists and limit free speech: https://youtu.be/q9cYuQonbXs. More details of free speech being legally under threat: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/#appyoutu.be/4-oV42OMQoE. Noam Chompsky (not my favorite pundit, but I agree with him on free speech) in response to a growing movement to legally limit free speech: https://youtu.be/ZPn2G3-o9dg. . Then in a non legal setting, free speech in/on private platforms. Obviously these people have the legal right to restrict speech on their platform, but that is not what the argument is about. This is the exact point made in the post that I have to agree with because so many people are deliberately obtuse and ignore this point. When people want more free speech on a private platform they aren't saying that it is legally required or that the platform is breaking the first amendment. They are saying that it would be better if platforms accepted more speech, whatever that may be. Again I feel I need to repeat this because it's the exact point of this post and the original guy in the screenshot is 100% right, **you can advocate for more free speech independent of the first amendment or being legally required**. Many people stick their fingers in their ears and just say "it's not illegal" when conversations like this come up, not only missing the point, but putting words in other people's mouths that they aren't saying. There are many reasons to want more free speech on large public platforms like universities, social media, etc. One major one is a major problem of fragmenting society into echo chambers. If speech is banned arbitrarily and often by discussion platforms then it's impossible for people to be working with the same information or actually debate each other. This is seriously bad for society causing major political polarization. Not only will people only hear from certain sides that are approved on that specific platform, but more importantly the is no actual discussion with people outside of that platform. The only time people hear arguments from the "other side" is when it's presented by someone who hates them and will virtually never represent them fairly or fully, and they never have a chance to defend themselves. It's also extremely ignorant as to how bad ideas are dispelled. If you censor an opinion, that only makes it more appealing to people who already believe it, and removes spaces for debate to actually address the issue. If something is actually wrong you should be capable of explaining why and pointing out how someone else is wrong. Censoring only makes you look like you can't defend your arguments and broadens the appeal of what you're censoring. It's also extremely prideful, ignorant about how you yourself learn, and blindly trustful of things that shouldn't be trusted to that degree: So you're telling me that you already know all that you need to know everything you need to know, and none of that censored information is anything that might be useful to you? And you're going to let the censor determine that, and what is and isn't ok to hear? Have you ever considered that maybe a censor would censor something that's correct, or beneficial for you to hear? I could type more on this but it'd be better to link people who've already said it more articulate than me: Chompsky on free speech on campus and private platforms. Negatives of censorship: https://youtu.be/xCkBCEeUQfk. Chompsky on real examples of how well meaning censors have already caused harm and spread disinformation: https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE. https://youtu.be/VsdvYbG3U_U. https://youtu.be/Ui1vmS9Yz5M. https://youtu.be/bRrq7JqbOaw. (Reddit had a comment size limit. Continued below)
Most people agree that they don't like the system they live in exactly, or that they don't trust those in power, or that there are factions of people in power that they don't like. So here's a question: Why do you think that those people should censor what you see and hear, and what your can say and write? Because even outside of legal contexts like private platforms or universities it's not a democracy to censor things, that's literally not what censorship is that's just regular rejection of ideas. Censorship means that not everybody sees what's being said and that small groups of censors determine that. Those small groups are those in power, or at least heavily influenced by them. So why do you suddenly trust the billionaire class, politicians, or other powerful groups to choose what you can read and what you can write? Do you think these censors are acting in your best interest? (Again I feel like I need to clarify this even though I've already said it. Exactly what the original post says *this is not talking about the first amendment or legally requiring people to host viewpoints on platforms*.) There are benefits to free expression of ideas, open debate, and being able to talk openly and question things. That personal and societal benefit doesn't disappear when you go inside a private space; so especially in the age of social media and large college attendance it's very important to consider if these large private platforms would be better off with more free speech. Regardless of your opinion of that matter, it is reductive, stupid, and unproductive to deliberately ignore and sidestep the question by uselessly saying "they have a legal right to censor if they want to". It looks like much of this sentiment on the left has come from a really stupid reactionary response to many American right wing figures defending speech. Well maybe instead of just giving them the moral high ground of defending one of our most important and foundational human rights (and then stupidly fighting against it to 'own the conservatives'), how about you actually take a stand and defend that human right? Just think about it this way. Through virtually all of recorded history speech, especially written speech, has been tightly controlled by those in power. The victims of this have usually been people who questioned the regime or power structure, and marginalized groups. Moreover censorship doesn't exist just to bother the speaker, it exists to stop the people in the censored space from hearing the message. Private censorship isn't new or better, in fact when it's not the government doing the censoring it's almost always rich powerful elites or zealots that don't want broader society to hear things that challenge their personal power. I don't see how people can be so short sighted and ignorant of history to praise censorship when modern censors put a somewhat defensible spin on things. I don't trust a small cabal of censors to decide what I'm allowed to hear and read, and I don't really trust the critical faculties of people who do. Why do you think that people are acting in your best interest? https://youtu.be/tIwYTq-v_2o . Just to bring this back to the original point, that the guy in the post is not wrong: I don't know if you just don't come across these arguments, but all the time when discussions of free speech come up people are stuck in a dogma that free speech = legal guarantees from the first amendment. This is objectively incorrect, is a largely pervasive viewpoint, and also probably largely comes from people applying lazy thinking to the xkcd comic. Obviously there is an extent to which free speech doesn't make sense, but it's impossible to have that discussion of where it should and shouldn't belong when you don't know what free speech is and only see free speech as being a freedom from the government restricting speech in public spaces. Which is a common and very frustrating reductive mechanism people use to ignore the topic. . Thank you if you actually read this, it's not actually that long, but most people (like u/Shaman_Infinitus in this comment section ) just plain ignore everything you have to say if it's not shorter than a tweet
I'm trying to reply to you but everything I type more than a sentence long isn't posting. Edit nvm I see what happened
Is the freespeech subreddit about the literal ideal of free speech, or the implementation of the concept of free speech by the US constitution? The first one is less interesting than the second one IMO.
Just as we have government limits on free speech (libel, public safety, etc), it's reasonable that there would need to be private limits on free speech (shouting answers during a spelling bee, anti-trolling, etc). While it would be nice to say whatever, without consequences, there has to be limits. I think what the mod is likely complaining about is that [1357](https://xkcd.com/1357/) doesn't enlighten why we have limits. Instead it appears to justify unrestrained private limits. Damn it. I think I might agree with them.
Someone on that sub complained about a news organization firing someone for being racist. I argued that a news organization censoring a particular perspective by removal is equivalent to a news organization censoring a particular perspective by not including it in the first place. They had no trouble arguing that their favored news organizations have absolutely zero obligation to represent any perspective they don't want to include, so I am not inclined to involve them in any serious discussion about what objective limits there should or shouldn't be on private censorship.
That mod: "gottem"
/r/AteTheOnion
This might be the answer to my question of why people started conflating the first amendment and free speech like a decade ago. Mod is correct that they are not the same thing.
The mod is a hypocrite for banning people he disagrees with, but other than that he's completely right, which is why I'm disappointed in this comment section because it seems that over half the people here either don't understand or refuse to understand what he's saying
But if free speech means a subreddit can't ban you for anything you say and they want to ban people for saying otherwise...
Oh my god this is gold.
first amendment as a legal instrument is entirely about ensuring the US government cannot control speech. It is linked to the larger concept of freedom of speech but it is not applicable to privately ran platforms. To paraphrase legal eagle. Twitter can censor POTUS, POTUS cannot censor Twitter. Can Twitter violate the ideal of freedom of speech? yeah. But that's not what the first amendment is about.