Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Bubba]

What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

YouTube is a private company, which can censor as much as it wants.

 

[BStrong]

What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.

Their house, their rules.

No 1st Amendment issue involved.

 

[Garrison]

Some people seem to have a really hard time understanding this, the right to free speech does not mean that any person or company has to provide you with a platform to speak on.

Frankly the US seems overly enamoured of the idea of free speech as an absolute, other people have the right to live a life free of threats and unwarranted abuse.

 

[Crossbow]

What about first amendment and hate speech?

What of the spirit of that expression which goes something like "I may not agree with what you say but I agree you have the right to say it or will defend you right to say it."

This is associated with Youtube's new program of monitoring content, as an example of censorship.

Recognizing that the first amendment may not apply in some places like a privately owned workplace.

Just because everyone has is a first amendment allowing free speech, that does not mean that everyone has to provide every stupid, idiotic, lying nutjob with a platform to issue that speech.

 

[dudalb]

Just because everyone has is a first amendment allowing free speech, that does not mean that everyone has to provide every stupid, idiotic, lying nutjob with a platform to issue that speech.

Classic example: I have an absolute constituonal right to go into my boss's office and call her a bunch of dirty names,but that will not keep me from being fired.....

 

[PhantomWolf]

As I just noted elsewhere, the Constitution applies to the US Government, not to private citizens. You have no 1st Amendment rights protecting you from me, I can stand next to you with a bullhorn and drown you out, that's my 1st Amendment Right. I also have no requirement to put up with you on my private property, be that a physical piece of land, or a website. YouTube can set whatever rules they like as to what content they will allow, as can this website. If they wanted they could have a rule that says only fluffy kitten videos. As long as they aren't run by the US Government or come under attack bt the US Government themselves, then the US Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper to them.

 

[Tony Stark]

As I just noted elsewhere, the Constitution applies to the US Government, not to private citizens. You have no 1st Amendment rights protecting you from me, I can stand next to you with a bullhorn and drown you out, that's my 1st Amendment Right. I also have no requirement to put up with you on my private property, be that a physical piece of land, or a website. YouTube can set whatever rules they like as to what content they will allow, as can this website. If they wanted they could have a rule that says only fluffy kitten videos. As long as they aren't run by the US Government or come under attack bt the US Government themselves, then the US Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper to them.

Small correction: the bill of rights applies to all governments in the United States, not just the federal government.

But yeah, if private companies want to kick nazis off of their property, tough **** nazis.

 

[xjx388]

A cake shop is a private business, yet they cannot refuse to serve people they find morally repugnant. What's the fundamental difference with a private company like YouTube which has actually set itself up as a place for the general public to share all kinds of speech?

 

[Tony Stark]

A cake shop is a private business, yet they cannot refuse to serve people they find morally repugnant. What's the fundamental difference with a private company like YouTube which has actually set itself up as a place for the general public to share all kinds of speech?

A cake shop doesn't have to serve nazi human trash.

 

[xjx388]

A cake shop doesn't have to serve nazi human trash.

Yes, this is true. But they do have to serve others that they find morally repugnant. It's possible for a shop owner to find both Nazis and gay people morally repugnant. The point being that we do indeed restrict the rights of private companies to serve/exclude the customers they want to.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yes, this is true. But they do have to serve others that they find morally repugnant. It's possible for a shop owner to find both Nazis and gay people morally repugnant. The point being that we do indeed restrict the rights of private companies to serve/exclude the customers they want to.

If there was an equivalence between being gay and being a nazi, you might have point.

 

[casebro]

If there was an equivalence between being gay and being a nazi, you might have point.

The equivalence is that both groups have people who hate them. But you knew that.

Personally I hate the disingenuous.

 

[Tony Stark]

The equivalence is that both groups have people who hate them. But you knew that.

Personally I hate the disingenuous.

That doesn't make them equivalent. But you knew that.

 

[Meadmaker]

A cake shop is a private business, yet they cannot refuse to serve people they find morally repugnant. What's the fundamental difference with a private company like YouTube which has actually set itself up as a place for the general public to share all kinds of speech?

There are a couple of differences. At least until this October, the issue is that laws have created protected classes. A cake shop can refuse to serve Nazis, but they can't refuse to serve blacks, because blacks are a protected class and Nazis are not.

This October, the Supreme Court will decide whether laws that demand cake shop owners provide cakes to all protected classes in all circumstances have gone too far.

Another difference between youtube and cake shops is the nature of the goods and services being provided. YouTube doesn't create content. It displays content. There is absolutely no dispute about whether or not that content constitutes "expression". Of course it does. When youtube bans content, it clearly does so because it does not want to be associated with that expression. If they were to ban content based on the race or sexual orientation of the person posting the content, that would be a different story. Clearly, that would be something that would run afoul of civil rights protections, but if they object to content, regardless of the attributes of the person posting the content, they don't.

 

[BStrong]

If there was an equivalence between being gay and being a nazi, you might have point.

The difference is that in certain localities, certain classes of individuals have been officially declared as having specific protections under the law.

Nazi's are not included in any of those classes.

I'm not citing this as support of the pointy-hat club.

As far as the gay-nazi thing goes, Tom of Finland might have a different take on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_of_Finland

 

[Giordano]

Yes, this is true. But they do have to serve others that they find morally repugnant. It's possible for a shop owner to find both Nazis and gay people morally repugnant. The point being that we do indeed restrict the rights of private companies to serve/exclude the customers they want to.

As you know, they (and other USA businesses) cannot refuse to serve someone because of their religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. They can always refuse to serve any individual for any other reason: their politics, their behavior, their appearance, or even as a complete whim. And of course the obligation to serve these groups is limited to public businesses; anyone can discriminate against any of these groups when it comes to one's actions as a private citizen.

Freedoms are never unlimited because the freedoms of one person can conflict with those of another. There are limitations on one's "freedoms" in any society. Limitations on one's "freedom" to shoot other people. Limitations on one's freedom to poop wherever one pleases. Limitations on defrauding a customer. Limitations on verb sling threatening a child. Limitations on shouting fire in a theater. And limitations on refusing to serve a customer in a public business because of their fundamental identity. The conclusion our society has reached is that there are aspects of people's identities that are their fundamental right to possess and to not be publicly discriminated against as a result.

But are you certain that you wish to defend the view that gay people are morally repugnant and equivalent to Nazis?

 

[johnny karate]

I love how someone always drags out that tired old "But what about the cake shop owners!" argument in threads like these, and then spikes the football way too soon.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A cake shop is a private business, yet they cannot refuse to serve people they find morally repugnant. What's the fundamental difference with a private company like YouTube which has actually set itself up as a place for the general public to share all kinds of speech?

I'm not going to go on a rant here. I'm going to put on my most "normal" hat I can on this.

The short answer is the restriction on private business is a very functional decision meant to prevent the damage from whole classes of people being shut out from the marketplace. Most people want that. The civil Rights act and the court did a brilliant job of threading a structure on private sales that works for almost everyone. Like a lot of great functional decisions, I don't think it follows or gives the most useful philosophical answers. But it doesn't have to.

Taking off my hat, there is nothing more repugnant than these provisions of a civil rights act.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Freedoms are never unlimited because the freedoms of one person can conflict with those of another.

Which never occurs in refusing a customer.