You honestly think anyone should be allowed to say anything with zero consequences?
No. No incitement to violence and criminal activity. However, people shouldn't engage in extra-legal censorship of media, unless they are willing to take on all of the responsibilities of a publisher. If an entity claims to be a "platform," there is precedent that Free Speech outweighs property rights.
Isn't that an infringement on my freedom of speech to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources?
I'm all for you getting on YouTube "to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources." But if YouTube is going to call itself a "platform," then it shouldn't be infringing on your right of Free Speech to do so.
>The people who use the "no freedom from consequences" language are intentionally vague about what form those consequences take, and often, those "consequences" are including violent reactions
Platform has never meant "open to everyone". You always have the right to shout racist slurs from your soapbox in the public square (at least until a police officer cites you for disturbing the peace or something), but don't expect to do the same in Joe's ice cream parlor and not get thrown out. Consequently, if you go into the KKK headquarters and start preaching equality, they have every legal right to have you kicked out as well
And it's especially important to maintain that right when it comes to things like "Joe's ice cream parlor waters their drinks".
Should Google be allowed to forbid criticism of Google on their platforms? I mean, perhaps - but it's hard to argue that there couldn't be consequences from that.
Should Google be allowed to forbid criticism of Google on their platforms? I mean, perhaps - but it's hard to argue that there couldn't be consequences from that.
In the 20th century, here's how you could tell the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys forced you to agree. If there were inconvenient facts or opinions, they were suppressed and the people espousing them were coerced. By contrast, the good guys were open. They let people criticize them, letting their good deeds speak for them. The bad guys destroyed lives just to get their way. Here's the thing: The good guys and the bad guys weren't properly defined by their flags. They weren't confined to particular geographic areas and constrained by borders. The good and bad were defined by the above actions.
So let's apply that to the present day. How does Google behave? Are they the kind of people who would suppress opinions they don't like? Are they the kind of people who would do something intellectually dishonest, like leave out the references? Are they the kind of people who would be the opposite of open, and use superior force to get their way?
Indeed, it's hard to argue that there couldn't be consequences from that. The arc of history is long, and it bends towards justice.
No. No incitement to violence and criminal activity. However, people shouldn't engage in extra-legal censorship of media, unless they are willing to take on all of the responsibilities of a publisher. If an entity claims to be a "platform," there is precedent that Free Speech outweighs property rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Isn't that an infringement on my freedom of speech to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources?
I'm all for you getting on YouTube "to call a belligerent nazi a pathetic waste of resources." But if YouTube is going to call itself a "platform," then it shouldn't be infringing on your right of Free Speech to do so.