Free speech is mostly fine. Worry about illegal restrictions being placed upon you by corporate overlords, like Youtube taking down critical content that doesn't violate Copyright law. Worry about politicians who say that the press should be limited in what it can report. Don't work about the girl with pink and blue dreadlocks or the dude with a confederate flag t shirt. If you put your voice out there in the public space for thousands to hear you should expect to get thousands of responses if they don't like what you have to say. That isn't censorship, that is life.
State of Speech
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While Ghandi was old, he fell to an assassin's bullet, not the ravages of time. He may well have lived longer had that not happened.infohippie said:
What's illegal about Youtube's restrictions? Think that's a bit of an exaggerationDeffoNotAnAltAccount said:
Copyright law overreach is a violation of the law. You laying claim to my copyright content is such a violation.The Decapitated Centaur said:
Youtube's entire copyright process depends on the fact that people won't get engaged in lawsuits over copyright claims. Litigation is expensive. The first time somebody actually challeges a wrongful claim in court out of principle and refuses to settle Youtube will be in hot water because their process isn't in any way reasonably accurate.
Honestly if somebody wanted to do away with Youtube's overreach of copyright law the best way would be to fund somebody who has clearly, unquestionably been wronged by the process. The only way it will get better is force Youtube through consumer or legal pressure. People won't stop using Youtube so legal pressure is the only realistic avenue for change. To my knowledge the best such example would be Fox's copyright claim on a Double Dribble video that they ripped from Youtube and used in an episode of Family Guy. Link: https://kotaku.com/7-year-old-gaming-vid-briefly-pulled-from-youtube-becau-1778002951
Edit: Double Dribble is a good example because the creator of the original video and the creators of the game both have a grievance with Fox. If the case actually went to court Fox would probably just try to buy the rights to Double Dribble in the fisrt place. If some effort for this lawsuit were made one would have to buy the game's copyright and get the cooperation of the creator of the original video.
This didn't go how I was expecting it to. I thought we were going to have a discussion about how Free Speech solely protecting us from the government was a little weird when corporations have more control over our lives than the government does. Non-disclosure agreements in particular are an abomination.
Probably not the best solution but I imagine that if a sitting judge had to approve of every single NDA individually that there'd be a less lot bs buried in them.Drathnoxis said:
Someone also murdered Martin Luther King Jr, too.Gordon_4 said:
You do not lose claim to the moral high ground if you use the same tactics. If I'm getting punched in the face, and I punch that guy in the face to get him to stop punching me in the face, I still have the gosh darn moral high ground
As an aside, MLK favoured non-violence, but owned a gun for self defence for good reasons.DrownedAmmet said:
True that, I'm sick of hearing this bullshit morality argument that pins an equal amount of blame on the people fighting back against actual murders, lynchings, and assaultsThaluikhain said:
OK. Obviously, someone was able to successfully derail this thread. So, let's try to get it back On Topic. In case you guys forgot, it is about corporate restrictions on speech.DrownedAmmet said:
I didnt forget, I just didn't want to let those statements stand.KissingSunlight said:
But okay, let's talk about speech. It's not hypocritical to criticise corporations to punish their employees for their speech. The corporations have the right to employ whoever they want, and I have the right to call them cowards for punishing someone for calling our shitty president a white supremacist. Speech is doing great in this country because we all can say what we want, and that includes criticising other people's speech. The most hypocritical thing to me is to claim someone is attacking one's right to speech when they are attacking the speech itself
there, I solved it
The idea of Freedom of Speech does not begin and end with the First Amendment, even in the United States.Souplex said:
The drafters of the Bill of Rights were undoubtedly concerned both with what was feasible for a young and uncertain conglomeration of colonies to enforce and with not emulating the overreach they had experienced as a holding of the Britain. And they would struggle even with what it meant just within government, as the Alien and Sedition acts would attest.
But I find it difficult to believe that the intent was that "Freedom of Speech" would be protected only as long as plausible deniability could be established that the government wasn't responsible for quashing it. Agents provocateurs and "astroturf groups" have a history that far predates the coinage of the terms.
This pretty much. People often seem to forget that you can object for reasons other than free speech. Free speech or no, if someone fired someone for say supporting gay rights then I'd think they're a massive asshole for being against gay rightsDrownedAmmet said:
What does plausible deniability have anything to do with what he said? I don't see anything in what he said that suggests it's okay for the government to secretly employ people to do that. I'd imagine the reason they get away with it isn't because the law says it's fine but rather because you can't punish someone for something you can't prove they're guilty of. I'm not sure how you expect to get rid of plausible deniability?Callate said:
The problem there is that a person's right to willingly enter into a contract is generally enshrined in our rights just as much as speech. Corporations have so much control because they have the money, so they get to dictate most of the terms of many contracts/ NDA's work because you are agreeing to conform your behavior to a standard to receive access to money or information that another party controls.Drathnoxis said:
The right for two private entities to enter in to a binding agreement with consequences for violating said agreement is one of the cornerstones of a capitalist society, without the government arbitrating to an uncomfortable degree, we've yet to really find a suitable alternative to this method.
For individual things like NDA's you can regulate to a limited extent to declare that some expectations are too burdensome to tolerate, but you are going to have a hell of a time getting those changes to stick, just look at various whistleblower protections where courts are constantly trying to set limits on what contracts can and cannot prevent a person from speaking about and what consequences are appropriate if breaking that clause meets some standard of public good or reporting.
Are you claiming that there are options that your speech will be protected even from corporate interferences? Sure you have a right not to enter into a contract with your perspective employer or any other corporate entity that have restrictions on your speech Would you be employed there if you refuse to sign the contract binding your right to speak freely? I don't think so. Also, what "public" internet platform can you speak freely without entering into agreement with some sort of contract like a code of conduct?EternallyBored said:
Depends on the corporate interference involved. Is a corporation having someone following you around and blowing an air horn anytime you open your mouth? That would be a pretty easy case to get, at the very least, a restraining order from a judge. Is the corporation telling you that you don't get to use their personal property to espouse your ideas from? You're not going to get shit and for good reason; you, me, all people, and all corporations have the right to kick guests off of our property if they break the standards that we established when they entered. If someone shows up at a party at your house and starts doing nothing but screaming racist obscenities towards your other guests, you would immediately show them the door. A corporation has those exact same rights for their property.KissingSunlight said:
This sounds like you're complaining that the contract has terms to it... You don't have a right to be employed at any particular company or even at all. If this is something you are really upset about, why aren't you against companies stipulating restrictions on the amount that you earn while working there (aka a salary)? I mean if I refuse to sign a contract regarding my free market worth, I wouldn't be employed there either.KissingSunlight said:
It doesn't matter. Those internet platforms are private property of the individual or group that owns, operates, and pays for them. If you want a platform that has an agreement which matches your exact wishes, you can either create one yourself or sign a contract with someone to create one.KissingSunlight said:
Damned right you do. I only pointed out Ghandi was assassinated because it seemed pertinent to differentiate dying of old age and just being old when you die. Fascinating man, bit strange but very fascinating.DrownedAmmet said:
KissingSunlight said:
My post was mostly about how the ability to enter into a contract is enshrined as a fundamental right in a free capitalist society, specifically in the US at least, and that changing that in any major way is probably about as easy as changing public speech laws. So Drathnoxis complaint, while it has its merits, is at least as complex a topic as free speech protecting us from the government.
Basically, what I mean, is that the right to restrict bahvior through mutual contract agreement is at least as hard to change on a governmental level as any sort of other change to rights, it?s possible to offer certain protections or regulations if what one party is demanding is too onerous, like how you can?t actually enter in to a contract that would require grievous bodily harm or force you to say things that are dangerous to public safety, and a contract can be unenforceable for various reasons like the aforementioned whistleblower protections.
The last paragraph was me proposing, that while very difficult, you could theoretically get a court to step on and regulate certain things with enough effort, mostly specifically referring to NDAs. Mostly I was hoping Drath would then explain specifically what he finds so repulsive about NDAs.
Your last line about public Internet forums and codes of conduct is a whole different thing that gets into services versus products and is more about legal ass covering than formalized contract law, like for example, the conduct clauses in a professional sports stars contract, or an NDA in an actor?s contract. Public codes of conduct are on shaky ground legally kind of like EULA?s without court precedence it?s unknown exactly how far something like a website could take a code of conduct.