U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate online speech

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by wvenable on Sunday September 18, 2022 @12:58AM (#32884549)

Perhaps the problem is the definition of free speech. Free speech is you can't go to jail for what you say. It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by NeverFade on Sunday September 18, 2022 @03:05AM (#32885185)

Let's start by defining what Free Speech isn't.

There is no Free Speech if you can't speak freely where speech is actually happening.

So if nearly all speech is moving online to massive social media sites, and you can't speak there freely, but instead your speech is subject to the whims of random employees - there is no Free Speech in this situation.

> It certainly doesn't mean speech without consequences of any sort nor does it mean that you automatically get an audience for it.

But it does mean you can speak. Even if there may be consequences, and even if you don't automatically get an audience.

That's the right I'm supporting here, against an alarmingly large group that seems to consider this right to be no longer necessary, and even undesirable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by wvenable on Sunday September 18, 2022 @02:13PM (#32889886)

Before the Internet, where was nearly all speech actually happening?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. appeals court rejects big tech’s right to regulate o... by peyton on Sunday September 18, 2022 @03:11AM (#32885213)

That’s not the definition of free speech in the US. The reason you should care is that your definition is likely to produce a free speech absolutist counter-movement.

[ Parent | on HN ]