undefined | Better HN

0 pointsd0gsg0w00f4y ago0 comments

But is taking away the megaphone the same as silencing them? When everyone has a megaphone, those who don't are not heard.

0 comments

dgellow4y ago

And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others.

That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.

FeepingCreature4y ago

Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.

ehsankia4y ago

But that doesn't mean, for example, that I'm allowed to force myself on your house and shout at you because I have a right to you being my audience. You're not entitled to Youtube hosting your content, just as you're not entitled to NYT hosting your opinion, just as I'm not entitled to have my words on your private blog.

FeepingCreature4y ago

Right, the question is to what extent YouTube is in fact a house and to what extent it is a public square.

My view is that it is functionally a public square, regardless of who owns it. Compare a protest on the side of a road in a company town.

magicalist4y ago

> There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience

A right to access to an audience, not a right to an audience.

dgellow4y ago

The US definition of free speech also recognize companies freedom of speech. Which is exactly what makes them able to decide what content is shared or not on their platform. You’re using their properties, you have no entitlement to them relaying your message.

bena4y ago

I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience.

The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.

FeepingCreature4y ago

Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is communication among citizens. I don't have a cite for the direct quote I wanted (it's lost in my browser history), but the idea was that free speech is not satisfied by just making available a space in which one is not going to be heard by anyone. This doesn't imply a positive right to a particular audience, of course.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dgellow4y ago

And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others.

FeepingCreature4y ago

ehsankia4y ago

FeepingCreature4y ago

Right, the question is to what extent YouTube is in fact a house and to what extent it is a public square.

My view is that it is functionally a public square, regardless of who owns it. Compare a protest on the side of a road in a company town.

magicalist4y ago

> There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience

A right to access to an audience, not a right to an audience.

dgellow4y ago

bena4y ago

I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience.

The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.

FeepingCreature4y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse