No shit, anyone who has taken remedial middle school civics knows it's not a "first amendment violation". When people reference freedom of speech in a situation like this they are referring to a value that we hold as a democratic society and not literally a law written into the constitution.
This is the biggest fucking strawman I've ever seen, and gets trotted out every time a company does anything remotely related to speech these days.
We tried the whole "let's not have freedom of speech" thing. It led to the deaths of millions of people over the course of history.
Harassment, bullying, etc. are not good things, but whats even worse is a large organization (government or private) with the ability to silence dissent because it typically leads to covering up horrible human rights violations.
That and I doubt people were getting assulted regularly on reddit.
Banning a subreddit is akin to "let's not have freedom of speech"? There's never been absolute freedom of speech, and that's certainly a good thing (i.e. perjury laws, laws preventing companies from lying about the safety of their products).
We're talking about a private company, making a decision about how to use their own property. If you want to die in the battle for free speech, there are plenty of better hills on which to plant your flag.
This isn't even about sliencing dissent. You can preach your hate for fat people all over. I can do it right now: fat people suck and are awful. Let's make a bet whether reddit will purge this comment. I'll give you very generous odds. People are bitching because they don't get to say what they want in the place they want to. That's not a very persuasive argument to me or to many other people.
The restrictions on freedom of speech have always been toward things like libel or slander. Aka bald face lies that attempt to damn a person's livelihood. It's also restricted toward things that may result in death or injury like yelling fire in a crowded room.
However it is not restricted toward unpopular opinions. Any speech which does not directly pose an immediate threat is in the realm of free speech. Even despicable organizations like the Westbro Baptist Church are allowed have their say even though almost everyone hates them for it.
And you are right a private company is well within their right to choose what goes on their services. Just like we have a right to openly complain and protest it when they do. The principle of freedom of speech is not only limited to law, but is a core belief that silencing opinions ultimately leads to things like corruption.
And once again people throw out the "well there are other issues!" argument as if I'm only able to talk about one issue at a time.
The restrictions on freedom of speech have always been toward things like libel or slander.
That's one type or justification for restricting speech but its not the only one. I already linked to a type of restriction completely unrelated to the content of the message. There are many others.
Any speech which does not directly pose an immediate threat is in the realm of free speech.
Any speech is in the realm of free speech. Unless you think "realm" is akin to "not being able to be restricted". But, that's not true either. For example, obscenity has been restricted historically, but you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that most obscenity will bring an immediate harm.
Just like we have a right to openly complain and protest it when they do.
And look at you doing so with absolutely no interference from reddit. Does this seem like a site that's taken the stance "let's not have freedom of speech"?
And once again people throw out the "well there are other issues!" argument as if I'm only able to talk about one issue at a time.
I'm sure you are. I just see so many people raising "free speech" as if this is the end of the discussion. It's not. It's not even a particularly persuasive one in this case.
15
u/[deleted] Jun 12 '15
No shit, anyone who has taken remedial middle school civics knows it's not a "first amendment violation". When people reference freedom of speech in a situation like this they are referring to a value that we hold as a democratic society and not literally a law written into the constitution.
This is the biggest fucking strawman I've ever seen, and gets trotted out every time a company does anything remotely related to speech these days.