By "legitimacy" I don't mean that people agree with the conclusion being expressed, but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts. The 95 Theses were complaints against real injustices, not a set of fabricated smears.
Colonial independences generally were discussable - and discussed - at the time and in advance of their happening.
Not in the way you're thinking. This is at the time when the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. While it was the English nobility that opposed the king, they did so (1) at great risk to their own safety, and (2) as the only ones in a position to do so. Certainly no serf could have accomplished this -- they would have been killed.
Second sentence of the (excellent) Wikipedia article about it:
> First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.
In theory, perhaps. But the barons could and did challenge the King with a degree of success. The king did not have a practical monopoly on the use of force. So the description of Magna Carta as an 'agreement among the ruling class' seems reasonable.
This is far easier said than done. Just for starters, which "people" get to decide, and that's not even getting into the messy details at analyzing any arguments or facts.
We know who gets to decide - the owners of the communications platform and those who influence them, under current democratic legislation, which is completely subject to change according to the will of the citizens of a democratic country.
It's interesting how easy it is to observe stereotypical right-wing pedantically technical justification behaviors be adopted by the left (feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong) as the topic of specific discussion moves around various dimensions of reality.
I don't know anything about the facts of the case at hand. I am responding to the argument, made above and many place in this thread, that the only sorts of protections on free speech are legal ones, and that in particular they don't apply to legal actions taken individuals or private organizations.
His right to free speech is not infringed. He is still free to host the RSS feed and the media files however he sees fit.
Plenty of people here have argued for the gravely mistaken position that free speech protections should only apply to the government, but I've never heard anyone argue that private individuals and organizations are morally bound to protect free speech in certain circumstances but this only applies if they are completely wiping out the speech rather than just making it difficult to access. I don't understand why that would be the case.
Not all bad behaviors are illegal but calling for active, illegal harassment of an individual, which other people carry out, is, in fact, illegal and given this is often Jones' modus operandi, his activities are illegal and his overall strategy has involved staying one step ahead of lawsuits.
In case of Jones, He blatantly defamed the parents of Sandy Hook victims in a fashion that had considerable negative consequences for the parents due to constant harassment by Jones followers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/alex-jones-de...
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2018/08/apple-pulls...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-rem...
Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment, and it should likewise be protected as free speech by private parties.
Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment. It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections. But hate speech can loose first amendment protections for all the reasons other speech can; commercial speech, fighting-words and liable/slander included.
And of course, the first amendment doesn't require Apple or Facebook to host anyone so them banning first amendment protected hate speech is not a problem by itself, which is to say the second part of your claim isn't justified.
I mean, Jones' vicious rants are hate speech, slander, and falsehoods. They are intended to damage innocent, a-political, private individuals and have indeed damaged a-political, innocent private individuals. Which reason a company actually gives to ban Jones probably involves a PR calculation ("hate speech" sounds best) but whatever the given reason, I can't see this as unjustified.
"Hate speech is correctly generally protected by the first amendment" obviously does not mean "all hate speech is protected regardless of other properties it may have". That's the entire point of the word "generally". The point is that Apple and others are using "hate speech" alone as the justification.
> the first amendment doesn't require Apple or Facebook to host anyone so them banning first amendment protected hate speech is not a problem by itself, which is to say the second part of your claim isn't justified.
I have explained at least half a dozen places in this thread why it's a mistake to think there's no moral imperative for private individuals and organizations free speech just because the first amendment applies only to the government. I didn't want to repeat myself, so I explicitly acknowledged in the comment you're replying to that it is an additional moral claim. Your comment just states your disagreement without actually arguing for it, or engaging with any of the arguments I have given elsewhere.
There is a moral imperative for private organizations to protect open expression in fashion appropriate to their position the national and world media "sphere" (Google suppressing a search is distinct from Apple not selling a tune is distinct from Youtube not hosting a video). None of them are identical to a government so none of them have imperatives identical to a government.
It's worth noting also that Facebook and others are transnational entities - hate speech is not protected speech in Europe, for example.
I didnt claim they were identical and I have in fact already given an example elsewhere in this thread for where they are different. If you want to argue for a particular difference in this case, do so. But just pointing out that I haven't fully anticipated and defeated to all possible counterarguments in a single 100-word HN comment is not constructive.
The various media platforms have, however, strongly interfered with his ability to profit from his lies, slander and malice and appropriately so. One can hope that a despicable thug like Jones winds-up in with his commercial empire collapsing and in state of destitution but unfortunately, he will mostly likely just slow shrink away.
Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no part of it.
>The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations.
Morals differ between organizations and individuals (just ask any church, the supposed arbiters of morals). Morals are relative to groups and individuals because they are created without/despite the input of other groups and individuals. If there were an absolute moral authority (which would obviate the need for other sets of morals) then perhaps this might be different.
All of this to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. His followers may feel differently, but to Hell with them, too.
You misunderstand. The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's suppression or speech with the acceptability/morality of that suppression. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech.
> Morals differ between organizations and individuals
People believe different things about empirical facts, but we don't think those difference of opinion mean there isn't a fact-of-the-matter which is separate from those opinions.
If you want to argue for moral relativism you need to argue for the non-existence of moral facts, which is fine and a reasonably popular position among some philosophers. But it's hard to convince anyone to listen to any of your arguments about what should be done, in this case or any other, if you admit it's just a personal opinion (like a preference for strawberries over blueberries) and you don't actually think they have any moral imperative to listen to you.
Well, then, to clarify on my part, I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Apple really only has the power that it has convinced consumers and shareholders to willingly given it (begrudgingly or not), aside from whatever power is granted by incorporation.
I don't have to agree with their decision (in this case, I do). If they were to drop some musical artist I really like (say, Peter Gabriel) I would probably feel differently, but that wouldn't make me any more right, just mad.
Again: the fact that something is legal doesn't make it moral.
> I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech.
You haven't actually engaged with my argument about the morality of this action, just stated you believe the opposite.
No, this is not where the line is drawn. In the case of first-amendment protection of free speech, the speech has to induce imminent lawless action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Thus, hate speech and speech that advocates violent revolution is protected.
Public universities. I wouldn't dream of asking the same thing of Liberty University. The difference being, the one is a branch of government, and the other is not.
Free speech is narrowly intended to be something that limits the government's ability to impose restrictions on non-government entities for good reason. Asking private organizations (e.g., Liberty University) to follow the same limitations would undercut free speech by preventing ones with a particular point of view (e.g., a conservative Christian one) from actually being able to express that point of view.
Now, if we all wanted to agree that Facebook needs to be granted common carrier status for publicly arguing with your family about politics, that would be different.
Huh? Most universities in the US are private, including the large majority of the top ones that host controversial debates. (All the Ivys, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, etc.) These universities are held to rather high standard of neutrality even though it's not legally required for them to do so (modulo restrictions from government grants, which are empirically not the main drivers of their behavior with regard to free speech). They behave this way because the university professor and administrators believe the world is better for it, and because otherwise the public would lower their esteem as honorable places of learning (and good places for donations!).
> Free speech is narrowly intended to be something that limits the government's ability to impose restrictions on non-government entities for good reason
No! The First Amendment is intended to limit the government. Free speech is a much wider concept! If you don't understand why free speech is an idea that has important moral implications for individuals and private organizations, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, the classic canonical defense of this. It's only 100 pages and available free.
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber...
Honestly, I want Liberty to support open and honest debate. Otherwise, what is the point of having a university? I understand that their professors are going to be required to sign their statement of faith. Such is not required of the student and students of all faiths are welcome.
I can say what I want at work but I can get fired for that speech. Same thing you can loss your advertisers and your platforms for the same speech.
I grew up in the last house in Bethel, CT before Newtown (Sand Hook), heck my mom went to elementary school in Sandy Hook. Friends of mine had children in the school. People don't know how crazy it was the first 6 months there.
The tension was HUGE that first two weeks with Westboro Church trying to get there to protest (I knew that the people in CT would do everything to keep them away). Then the conspiracy crazies got involved and it just was a mess.
Still today I still get people who ask if it really happened. Those poor parents are hounded still. Think the Flat Earthers going after astronauts and multiply it by 10.
Jones is absolutely responsibly for his speech. Sure he can say it but platforms don't have to allow it. Terrorist, Nazis and Infowars should break every platform's policies.
You should only be fired if that speech directly interferes with the performance of that job, e.g., if the cashier says offensive thing to the customers or an employee tries to convince their coworkers to shirk their duties. Political opinions that are separate from an employee's job that the employee expresses on their own time should not be punished.
Free speech is about cordoning off a realm of ideas that is free from reprisals in meat space. If you don't understand why this is important, and applies to individuals contemplating economic reprisals just as much as to government incarceration, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, the classic canonical defense of this. It's only 100 pages and available free.
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty
The question of whether businesses should refrain from firing employee with unpopular opinions because the businesses fear anti-free-speech punishment from their customers (e.g., a boycott of a grocery store because the shift manager is pro-choice) is complicated, but it is very similar to the sorts of moral trade-offs made in the personal sphere all the time: if a group of students are being mean to Alice for no good reason and they will shun me if I stay friends with her, am I morally bound to stay friends with her? Yes, there is a presumption that I should not punish Alice unjustly, but there is also a limit on the size of negative consequences I am morally bound to endure on behalf of Alice. Likewise, businesses generally ought to refrain from firing employees who tweet unpopular opinions for free speech reasons, but it is unreasonable to expect businesses to take unlimited economic losses on behalf of such employees due to anti-free-speech customers.
Yep, he has plenty of money to set up his own broadcast channels if he must. If nothing else, Jones can broadcast on shortwave. Which is probably a good place for him.
as a customer of Apple I'm delighted by this move.
For instance, we expect universities to act as neutral debate platforms for all sorts of views that are not endorsed by the university administration. When they fail to do this, they are not legally penalized (modulo constraints from accepting government funding), but we (should) lower their public esteem. Newspapers and online media companies like Apple and Facebook could and should be held to a similar standard by the public, although in practice they are unfortunately given more latitude.