Here's the rub, I think most people also support limiting extreme speech. IDK that there are many (any?) defenders of someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
That, to me, indicates that the morality of limiting speech is more than just a simple binary choice "any limits are bad, no limits are good".
That's what "Free-speech-as-legal-right" is really trying to get at. It is the law trying to make the moral arguments for what free speech is and isn't and when it can be morally curtailed.
To me, the law has struck a decent balance. I don't think it's hugely immoral for a social media company to moderate their own content however they choose. Are downvotes in HN immoral? I don't think so. Do people here in HN believe flagged content is immoral or content that goes against the community rules? I don't think so.
To me, the only way this would be an issue is if Parler had no method to get their platform running. That's not the case. They can self host if they so choose. It isn't unreasonable for them to do that (many companies do).
That being said, I DO have an issue with ISPs choosing what content their customers have access to. That is mainly because a lot of people DON'T have a choice of provider. There is often only 1 high speed choice in a region. For them to filter or block content is a major issue.
Not really. There's not currently any huge controversy about banning spammers, DDoS attacks, or child pornography. A few fringe groups will argue it, but most sensible discussion concedes that censorship is useful and we need limits.
Parler's moderation policies caused their own problems. They decided they wanted to be a platform friendly to violent extremists. Their noted lack of moderation of violent rhetoric, calls to violence, and planning of violence made them a pariah.
Amazon is free to associate with whoever they want. They don't owe service to Parler or anyone else.
And it's not as if you can just go to the social media network down the street. Sites like Parler are trying to be those alternatives, and it's a tough business to even be #2 in.
Higher quality people might not like the seedy pawn shop in that strip mall with all the WW2 memorabilia, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to try to do business.
No part of AWS or Twilio fall under common carrier regulations. They can choose with whom they do business. They would and do cancel service for clients doing illegal things or against their TOS.
Amazon doesn't owe Parler a viable business. Parler made themselves into a toxic environment that drove third parties to abandon them.
I disagree with this argument not because I disagree with your conclusion, but because the issue is much, much darker.
It's not that folks are claiming "you must allow all speech," it's that they're saying "your free speech rights aren't as important as mine. As such, you should be forced to host/amplify my speech even if you don't want to do so."
That's not advocating for free speech, that's demanding that some folks' free speech rights be limited in favor of those of others.
And that's not only wrong, it's hypocritical and morally reprehensible.
These preachers set a great example of batshit old guy. Some times an amateur philosopher would debate them. Usually everyone in the audience came away convinced if the horrors of homosexual bigotry.
Where are people to see these shining examples and learn not to go down that path? How do they sharpen their arguments or even know the opposition?
The same place they've always been. On college campuses debating with philosophers. As well as everywhere else that happens.
If you're coming at this from the point of view who sees considers private companies doing the bare legal minimum to be fine and acceptable than pretty much everyone who think private entities should be more accommodating to speech than that is just going to look like various flavors of free speech absolutists/extremists.
My personal belief about why free speech should exist is that it helps us discover the truth, both morally and factually. As such, I think we should make spaces accessible that allow any idea to be discussed, even the ones we currently think are wrong, and if we limit speech we should do it such that no idea is rendered inexpressible. However, I understand that not every space should be a complete free-for-all, and I have no problem with limiting the way in which an idea can be presented to ensure politeness or harmlessness.
Within the scope of this belief, I find it obviously okay to deplatform speech up until doing so harms our overall ability to discover the truth. Past that point a tradeoff exists. I think that the removal of Parler is a tradeoff between the free speech of its users, vs the self-determination of Google, the potential harm done by Parler, and the existence of other spaces where ideas can still be discussed. While I therefore find removing Parler to be acceptable, I still feel that the moral principle of free speech must be applied to that decision, even if it's outweighed by other factors.
1. The moral principle of what should be platformed (which you agree is not everything) 2. The moral principle of free speech (which is what is in the constitution preventing the government from preventing freedom of expression)
I think we can agree that there is confusion but not on the type of confusion.
Even free-speech-as-moral-principle has limits, as defined by John Stuart Mill, who said that free speech can be curtailed when the expression causes harm. People get confused about this because they think free speech means all speech is free of consequence.
Inciting violence, coordinating death threats against individuals, and other similar expression causes harm.
I think a lot of confusion comes from people who only acknowledge free-speech-as-legal-right encountering people who support free-speech-as-moral-principle.