Do not worry; all these companies are private enterprises, so in US, freedom of speech doesn't apply anyway. Patreon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard/Twitter/Facebook will drop you like a hot potato, once you publish something mildly controversial.

What distinguishes a Twitter or Facebook from a phone company? At scale these platforms have become vital to public communication in the same way as certain utilities. Perhaps it would be better if businesses facilitating speech communication had to classify as a common carrier or utility. As a carrier they would get exemption from speech liability and in exchange democracy -- which needs free public discourse -- can function. Any business entity that gains too much power over the public discourse will inevitably gain undue influence over the future of politics. Do we not all lose if that happens?

They want it both ways; to have the legal protections telcos have, and to have a tight control over their platform.

This was touched on in the Congressional hearing with Mr. Zuckerberg, where he avoided the answer:

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TEX): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Zuckerberg, does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas.

CRUZ: Let me ask the question again. Does Facebook consider itself to be a neutral public forum, and representatives of your company are giving conflicting answers on this? Are you a ...

ZUCKERBERG: Well ...

CRUZ: ... First Amendment speaker expressing your views, or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, here's how we think about this: I don't believe that — there are certain content that clearly we do not allow, right? Hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective, that's why we generally try to refer to what we do as platform for all ideas ...

CRUZ: Let me try this, because the time is constrained. It's just a simple question. The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment.

ZUCKERBERG: Well, senator, our goal is certainly not to engage in political speech. I am not that familiar with the specific legal language of the — the law that you — that you speak to. So I would need to follow up with you on that. I'm just trying to lay out how broadly I think about this.

Common carrier status for phone companies in the U.S. was the price they had to pay for the monopolies they received to run telephone lines on public property or easements on private property, probably dating to earlier with telegraph companies.

Lawyers. There are lots of reasons, but it boils down to them not being like the phone company because they dont want to be. Facebook et al spend millions each year to maintain a very specific legal status across many areas.

So what? If Liberapay was based in the US, they could choose to continue hosting you if they wanted to. In the EU, they don't have that option.

That's a theoretical rather than a real objection since even if your platform doesn't get shut down the US payment processors such as paypal can shut you down and they're very difficult to get around - just ask subscribestar.

This just in: https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/110076019755373773...

Twitter sends legal warning for blasphemy. They couldn't find better timing for illustrating the point.

The amount of ‘America! Fuck yea!’ in that thread is cringe inducing. Is there nobody trying to talk about the issue at hand without invoking any of the crazy emotional appeals to American exceptionalism or Muslim hatred?

> The amount of ‘America! Fuck yea!’ in that thread is cringe inducing. Is there nobody trying to talk about the issue at hand without invoking any of the crazy emotional appeals to American exceptionalism

I was literally arguing, that the nice theoretical point of guaranteed free speech is null and void by the current implementation of communication/publishing/payment processing. Where do you find 'America! Fuck yea!' in that? If anything, it is a critique of the current status, which hides ugly reality behind nice theory.

> or Muslim hatred?

Oh boy, another huge can of worms. Muslims still have no idea, what is a hatred in the West. They interchange criticism with hatred, and then they react somewhere between rioting to violence, fueling the vicious circle. They have no idea how Christians were/are pushed around in the West (you can start with the Covington issue recently: they were automatically guilty for being white and Catholics); or don't even consider how they behaved/are behaving towards Christians in the Middle East. Food for thought: ever seen Christian no-go zone in Saudi Arabia? Thought so.

> Muslims still have no idea, what is a hatred in the West.

It’s stunning to read this. Are you really claiming you haven’t seen hatred towards Muslims?

> hey have no idea how Christians were/are pushed around in the West

And there’s where it goes from stunning to laughable. Yes, Christians, truly the most oppressed people in the West.

> It’s stunning to read this. Are you really claiming you haven’t seen hatred towards Muslims?

It is a fraction compared to the hatred from Muslims.

> Yes, Christians, truly the most oppressed people in the West.

Not only in the West; try being a Christian in the Middle East. You know, the countries controlled by Muslims today. Are you going to claim with a straight face, that they are not opressed?

Don’t try to deflect by putting words in my mouth.

> Not only in the West

How?

Are you saying that there isn't free speech in the EU? What are you basing this statement on?

Many countries in the EU have blasphemy laws and the European Court of Human Rights says they are okay:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

If someone criticised Jesus Christ in their podcast (for example), they would be putting Liberapay at risk. I don't believe Liberapay would allow that, so they'd just ban the user. That's what makes Liberapay a risky option.

That's quite different from "free speech is not considered". Every country has free speech exceptions: for example, in the USA "there are several common-law exceptions, including obscenity,defamation,incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,fighting words,fraud, speech covered by copyright, and speech integral to criminal conduct"

In th EU:

> The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been legally binding since December 1, 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon became fully ratified and effective. Article 11 of the Charter, in part mirroring the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides that

> 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

> 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. The European Court of Justice takes into account both the Charter and the Convention when making its rulings. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union accedes to the European Convention as an entity in its own right, making the Convention binding not only on the governments of the member states but also on the supranational institutions of the EU.

So, is speech in USA "freer" than in the EU? Yes. But in both cases free speech is recognized as a right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

> So, is speech in USA "freer" than in the EU? Yes. But in both cases free speech is recognized as a right.

True, but also trivial. Everyone pays lip service to free speech, even the most serious violators of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea

Article 67 states: "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations."

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

While many EU countries duo have blasphemy laws, they're almost never enforced. They're laws that the majority of people find ridiculous and would be quickly removed if anyone started to actually enforce them. If Liberapay did block someone for blasphemy without being legally compelled, they'd likely face a huge backlash themselves. If they were legally compelled the law would soon be changed.

It's not like the US doesn't have a bunch of laws that violate free speech but are never enforced, and thus still sit on the books unchallenged.

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently).

That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet).

EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

The charge was blasphemy, or, in the words used in the article: "disparagement of religious precepts". It could not be defamation because there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad did marry and have sex with a child. That was not doubted even within the Muslim community until it became a source of controversy in modern times.

With Ireland's recent repeal, it seems there are now only 17 European countries with blasphemy laws, including Austria, where this case happened:

> Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the Vatican City. This list excluded countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, which provide narrower provisions for insulting the objects of a religion in places of worship or public ceremonies.

https://ipi.media/despite-danish-repeal-blasphemy-laws-still...

Well, it seems my understanding of the word blasphemy is not the commonly used: I was considering only "lack of reverence to a deity", while "insulting or showing contempt" to the practice is also considered blasphemy.

I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Austria does have a blasphemy law. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=a...

Specifically, it covers disparagement and mockery of religions and traditions if it is likely to cause justified anger. That leaves a lot open to interpretation (when is anger justified?) but it seems clearly aimed at blasphemy.

All countries in the EU must follow article 11 of the CFR.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring content that violates their rules, and banning users who don't comply.

The parent likely knows this, and yet chooses to deliberately misinform in their comment.

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms".

What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?

An American can exercise their government-protected right to free speech on their own website. This right does not apply to someone else's website, since it would be infringing on the website owner's property rights. Freedom of speech doesn't grant the speaker the right to occupy someone else's private property.

If those websites wish to police speech to this degree then they can reclassify themselves as publishers and accept all the legal burdens that come with it. At least then they'd be intellectually honest.

Let's use Facebook as an example.

The "Facebook © 2019" notice on each Facebook page tells users that they are on someone else's website. Next to the notice is a link to Facebook's terms of service, which discloses their "Community Standards". Facebook has been dishonest in many situations, but they don't hide their ability to moderate content in any way.

It's certainly within one's right to be upset with Facebook's policies. If you feel strongly enough about this, you have the option to stop using Facebook, and you can switch to a different platform with policies that align more closely with your views. You can also publish your own website, where you can establish your own rules.

But Facebook's website is not your property, so you can't graft your preferred rules onto Facebook. You can ask them nicely and you can apply social pressure, but Facebook makes the final decision on how they run themselves because the site is not yours.

Yeah that's not really the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that Facebook is acting as a publisher and publishers don't have DMCA protection which is what makes the model work. They want the privileges without the responsibility.

Facebook doesn't become a "publisher" by removing user-generated content from its platform. They'll continue to qualify for DMCA Title II's safe harbor provision as long as they take down copyright infringing material that gets reported to them. Facebook is not required to leave non-infringing material intact to be protected under DMCA Title II.

But on the internet almost everything is on someone else's private property, unless you run your own website on your own hardware running on your own network and using your own DNS.

The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term.

You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo.

As for your last question...I mean, really? "What's the point?" Are you actually asking this in good faith? Go take a look at any country which doesn't have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. How about being able to say what I want without being disappeared in the middle of the night? If Twitter bans someone for hate speech you honestly believe that's comparable to something like Khashoggi's assassination?

You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous.

> The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term.

This is an opinion, and one many people disagree with. The idea of freedom of speech existed before the first amendment. They're not the same thing, it's just convenient for authoritarians to conflate them because it creates a narrower scope. It's intentional equivocation and a pretty flimsy argument tactic.

> You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo.

Again, not the same thing, but what you're getting at is freedom of association. A company can choose whom they do business with, as an individual can choose whom they allow in their home. The interesting thing lately is that many people only believe in freedom of association when it means that they get to pick who is excluded, and very rarely believe in the actual principal. You can see this in the whole "gay wedding cake" situation that played out in the last couple of years. Much of the same political group that loves to trot out the idea that you can censor people out of existence on the internet was horrified when a private business chose not to create a specific message on their product.

> You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous.

Not really, it's actually pretty dead on. John Stewart Mill wrote at length about censorship in On Liberty and specifically wrote about censorship via social pressure and how dangerous it was. It's not some imagined idea, it's just one inconvenient to a particular political group's goals right now.

Thanks for making these points so clearly.

The person you are rightly critiquing seems similar to the careless but widespread view that says, "sure, go ahead and X, that's fine, it's your [legal] right, but I think blah blah" with this thing few ever catch which is: it's often totally NOT fine to do something that is nonetheless legal.

You have the right to X, but I can still say STOP IT. And I could reasonably argue in various cases that X is anti-social or bad for any range of reasons. Please people do NOT just accept or do whatever as long as it's legal. That whole idea is craziness.

Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you. Government can. That's the point.

> Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you

In many US jurisdictions they can do the first (and so can essentially everyone else.) They also do the last, often without legal consequences, though not as the outcome of a judicial process (but in civilized countries, government can't do that as the outcome of a judicial process, either.)

But they can use their opinion in such a way that I am not accepted by the majority of other companies in the sphere.

I'm not picking on you in particular, but this is a rather annoying argument that people bring up that is utterly nonsensical. Companies can and do cause harm to individuals. No they can't put you in jail but they can otherwise isolate you from society via making you unemployable, revealing personal information to social embarrass you, or barring you from essential services to function in modern society. To pretend they aren't is to be in denial to the scope and power and of modern companies. I say all this as an ardent capitalist for what it's worth.

Sure, but no one is claiming private companies can't hurt you. That's not what this is about. Note the specific term used: the government can kill you. It is the sole arbiter of what's legal in its domain. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect you from being shamed or embarassed for what you say. It exists to keep you from being jailed or murdered to censor the voice of the people.

So no, it's not "utterly nonsensical." Everything you're bringing up is completely orthogonal to the political theory of freedom of speech.

I mean that is exactly what the thread was about. Legalism, and the 1st amendment is very uninteresting as an argument about morals to me. The principle of the freedom of speech is an interesting moral argument which these platforms (publishers if we're being intellectually honest) are often guilty of abusing. Slavery was once "legal" yet when people talk about freedom the entire concept isn't hinged on the 13th amendment.

I'm not conflating anything. I stated a fact, that the federal government cannot punish you for exercising freedom of speech, nor can it restrict your speech. Private companies aren't beholden to those restrictions on their own platforms. The person above the one I replied to was the one conflating the two, as I said.

> What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?

It’s your right to talk, but that doesn’t compel anyone else to broadcast it. Freedom of speech doesn’t require that anyone he made to listen.

What Voltaire said is entirely irrelevant, this is a legal question.

Are we really going to pretend that financial institutions are “private” enterprises? I recall the taxpayer being forced to bail them out for their incompetence. They are effectively government institutions and should be regulated as such.

If you're going to abuse the definition of public vs. private that much, receiving a child tax credit makes me a publicly owned entity, which means I can't tell my kids not to be rude to their mother.

TARP wound up making a small profit in the end, incidentally.

Its more than that, banking is a legally granted monopoly license (ie. Federal Reserve).

So they are enjoying all the perks of being government backed (protected monopoly + full bailout privileges), yet must endure none of the restrictions of a government agency. Best of both worlds.

Banks operate under a ton of restrictions. Such as Dodd-Frank.

It's pretty ironic that the solution for being "too big to fail" was to make the banks even bigger while also placing restrictions of many types of trading.

What should have been done is just remove the FDIC insurance and let banks do whatever the fuck they want. The only way to learn that risk management is important is if you see some of your competitors as road kill on the side of the road.

Not to get off topic here, but banks were bailed out because they made subprime housing loans that went bad, however it was the government that compelled those loans in the first place. By doing what the government demanded (increasing home loans to people who didn’t have the proper credit,) the banks crashed. Government policy and housing “activists” created the housing collapse.

https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-...

Freedom of speech is a general concept. It's not limited to only government censorship.

They might have free speech, but they have no means of getting paid for their speech.

If the right doesn't like being censored by private corporations, maybe they shouldn't make deregulation and allowance of this sort of behaviour a core part of their beliefs.

Me, I love seeing these guys deplatformed.

We still have Charlie Hebdo putting drawings of Mahomet on the cover so there is a still a lot of margin.

But it's good to stay vigilent.

It's not banned by law, but, especially after what happened to Charlie Hebdo (and it wasn't the first or the last incident like that, however probably most drastic), I'd say people are afraid to publicly say negative things about Islam, because the threat to their lives is very real. So, while we might have freedom of speech written into the laws and the state per se is not taking it away from us, it's also not protecting it enough from extremists who are against it.

That's pretty much the history of entire humanity. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of speaking, it means that the country you live in consider it a right.

And CH kept publishing on the same theme AFTER the murders, showing that they do, indeed, have freedom of speech, and are willing to use it.

1. It is not freedom of speech, if the consequence of speach is death.

2. If the country considers freedom of speech a right, shouldn’t the country make serious attempts to protect it? It does so for other human rights.

Free speech is a general society convention, omnipotence doesn't exist.

You have the right to not be raped as well, doesn't mean we can prevent all of them.

What right do you know that can be guaranteed all the time, under any circonstance ?

My point is that the state is not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. Obviously, no 100% protection is ever possible.

By the same argument, we can assume everyone in the US is now afraid of going to war after 9/11?

I see you have a deep understanding of European laws, which remarkably are also exactly the same for all 44 countries end for all 28 EU members.

Care to enlighten us?

what?