News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory. Parent comment

Re:Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory by jessriedel on Monday August 06, 2018 @04:10PM (#17701305)
> It is correct that something being hate speech by itself not sufficient cause for it to lose first amendment protections....

"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory by joe_the_user on Monday August 06, 2018 @04:32PM (#17701524)
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.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory by jessriedel on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @07:11AM (#17705410)
> None of them are identical to a government so none of them have imperatives identical to a government.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory by joe_the_user on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @07:57AM (#17705646)
Well, my most recent argument above was explaining the logic behind my earlier claims about what was appropriate for the various platforms that recently banned Jones (I've been assuming hn readers connect the dots). I don't think Facebook, youtube or Apple have made Infowars in any way impossible to find or learn about - indeed, they've given him lots of publicity which no doubt allows many to discover his hateful ideas, still freely available on his website (still indexed by Google).

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory by jessriedel on Tuesday August 07, 2018 @12:39PM (#17708187)
Earlier you argued that Apple et al were justified in banning Jones because he was using the platform to conduct illegal activity (albeit for which he has not yet been convicted). I agreed this would be a plausible justification, it's just not the one they actually cite. But now it sounds like you're saying they are justified in banning him because, although it may actually increases the spread of his message (thereby, presumably, increasing his ability to lead harassment in the short-term), it deprives him of the ability to profit from it. However, my understanding is that, at least with regard to first-amendment government constraints, speech doesn't become less protected just because it's intertwined with profit-making activity. (Of course, for-profit activities may introduce additional considerations that must be balanced against free speech, but the mere existence of profit does not reduce protection.) I don't see why that should be different when considering the free-speech duties of private individuals and companies vs. the government.
[ Parent | on HN ]