undefined | Better HN

0 pointsglobular-toast5y ago0 comments

We also need to update our definition of freedom of speech. It's commonly repeated on the Internet that freedom of speech doesn't cover private platforms. That's true because in 1791, when the First Amendment was written, only the government could impact individual freedom of speech. But now large companies can do it very effectively because they own the platforms everyone is using. Sure, you can still express yourself by shouting on the street or self-publishing a book, but that isn't a at all in the spirit of the Constitution. In practice, individuals can be silenced.

0 comments

dredmorbius5y ago

The principle of common carriers, over which all (lawful) conduct is permitted, including postal, telegraph, and telephone services, as well as equal-time and community-access broadcast services, offer alternate models.

I'm finding the "private platform, no free-speech rights" argument increasingly thin on platforms aggreggating hundreds of millions or billions of eyes and ears, and increasingly inextricably bound to social, commercial, and governmental institutions and activities. At the same time, the wild west alternative has also proved untenable, with strong civil-rights groups including EFF and ACLU increasingly acknowledging and accommodating this reality.

There's a middle way.

valuearb5y ago

That’s exactly the spirit of the constitution. Back then few people could afford a printing press, so your ability to reach the masses could easily be frustrated by the refusal of private entities that did.

But the founding fathers never thought it necessary to regulate printing presses to ensure the access of minority opinions. The First Amendment was explicitly written to prevent that kind of social intervention.

I think they’d tell you, set up your own server and your own service, it’s not hard.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse