7 ms·

Proof that freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet, short of launching a new AS. Sometimes I wonder if the US government should offer some kind of basi

by huibv 5y ago

Proof that freedom of speech doesn't exist on the internet, short of launching a new AS. Sometimes I wonder if the US government should offer some kind of basic web hosting to citizens to guarantee this fundamental right.

milesdyson_phd 5y ago
Fundamental right to web hosting?
- huibv 5y ago
  A web hosting that guarantees that the fundamental right to free speech can be exercised over the internet.
  - Bootvis 5y ago
    The speech isn't the issue here. The problem is the collecting of data on third persons. You might believe these providers looked through their ToS in search for a reason but I hope you agree with me that there is a difference between freedom of expression and data collection.
- msla 5y ago
  More charitable interpretation: The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard. I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.
  - yardie 5y ago
    > Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Wasn't there a rule that malls should be counted as public spaces? (Or am I thinking of a different country?)
      - Natsu 5y ago
        You're probably thinking of Pruneyard, I linked it just above you.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. That depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
    - msla 5y ago
      > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. Depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [snip] > This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. [snip] > In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Web hosting is so cheap it's practically already free. If you just want to toss up a webpage there are a number of providers that will do it for free. Choose a cheap domain name and your total costs are a few bucks a year unless it somehow becomes exceptionally popular.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    As a point of order, registrars are also refusing service. If you want a simple, non-controversial, non scalable website, yes, hosting one solo is really easy. As soon as you have something that you plan to scale it becomes nearly impossible to 'go it alone'.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Internet access is proposed as a universal human right by notable authorities and organisations. E.g., https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-internet-as-a-human-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-inter...
jakelazaroff 5y ago
You can always host it yourself. Are you unable to purchase a computer or rent a static IP address? Edit: Actually, with Tor the static IP should be unnecessary. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection.
- msla 5y ago
  That still places you at the mercy of your Internet provider.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    And that is why my position on this debate is that Internet access- the pipes, the ability to send data from one computer to another that requested the data- should be treated like a utility. I still think a site should be able to deny your request for data as they see fit though
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > You can always host it yourself. Are you unable to purchase a computer or rent a static IP address? I'm starting to think that can't be counted on as a viable option. It's one thing to deny someone access to a particular platform (e.g. Facebook), it's quite another to deny access to basic infrastructure services (e.g. DNS) for something that isn't actually illegal. The former should not utility-like access rules, but the latter probably should.
habeebtc 5y ago
The fundamental right you are referring to comes from the First Amendment, which begins, "Congress shall make no law...". Practically speaking, this means the government cannot penalize you for what you say. Aside from the fact that what this website is doing is not really speech (it is acting as a data controller), they aren't being penalized by the government, but by the hosting providers. There is no violation of first amendment rights here. Just the (mistaken) nebulous concept of "Free Speech".
- ben_w 5y ago
  If what is was also what ought to be, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning. Personally I don’t have more than a nebulous idea of what I think the shape of free speech ought to be: {fire in a crowded theatre, parasite medicine during a viral pandemic, homeopathic cancer remedies in general} seem like harmful things to allow, but the reason society (collectively rather than just the individuals within it) should allow and encourage free speech is to find the stuff where we’re all incorrectly confident what is and isn’t true. It combats groupthink. Likewise, who should that freedom bind? Just the government, nobody else? That’s great where communication is mediated by public-owned forums, public-owned post, and public-owned telephone networks, but most communication is now mediated my private companies. Compelling all private companies to be content-neutral in the same way as the government? I don’t see the downsides, but it is a radical change and I am a very long way from any form of law let alone constitutional. But the point is, this is about what isn’t, not what is.
  - beej71 5y ago
    The government isn't a private organization in that only the government can put people in jail. This is what freedom of speech is really about: the ability to say just about anything and not be fined or imprisoned. But it has never guaranteed that you'd have a platform from which to say those things... which is the same guarantee you get from Facebook or anywhere else. Goverment: no guarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because of the First Amendment. Facebook: no quarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because they're not the government. Also, it's unclear what legal mechanism could even be put in place to prevent companies from banning and censoring. And it's fraught with problems because you're trying to guarantee a platform, something the First Amendment never intended. Are companies allowed to delete comments? What if they're old comments? Do you have to keep them forever? Who pays for that? Can you delete porn? The First Amendment allows you to say "f--k" over and over and over as long as you're not threatening. Can you imagine people on, say, a religious board posting that over and over? And the organization wasn't allowed to censor it? It's a massive can of worms. Finally, on my blog I want the freedom to delete any comments for any reason or for no reason.
sebow 5y ago
The only solution would be a bill of rights for the internet. De facto Internet places(which are PRIVATELY-owned) are treated as public places, so why shouldn't the constitutional rights apply in their medium? Not to mention the whole Section 230 f*ckfest. The whole internet is a mess.And while usually messy meant opportunity for innovation and people trying new stuff(see 2000s-2010), right now it's messy in the sense of power-grabbing institutions/entities.

by huibv 5y ago

milesdyson_phd 5y ago

Fundamental right to web hosting?

huibv 5y ago
A web hosting that guarantees that the fundamental right to free speech can be exercised over the internet.
- Bootvis 5y ago
  The speech isn't the issue here. The problem is the collecting of data on third persons. You might believe these providers looked through their ToS in search for a reason but I hope you agree with me that there is a difference between freedom of expression and data collection.
msla 5y ago
More charitable interpretation: The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard. I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.
- yardie 5y ago
  > Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Wasn't there a rule that malls should be counted as public spaces? (Or am I thinking of a different country?)
    - Natsu 5y ago
      You're probably thinking of Pruneyard, I linked it just above you.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. That depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
  - msla 5y ago
    > It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. Depends on the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [snip] > This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama > Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. [snip] > In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
jandrese 5y ago
Web hosting is so cheap it's practically already free. If you just want to toss up a webpage there are a number of providers that will do it for free. Choose a cheap domain name and your total costs are a few bucks a year unless it somehow becomes exceptionally popular.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order, registrars are also refusing service. If you want a simple, non-controversial, non scalable website, yes, hosting one solo is really easy. As soon as you have something that you plan to scale it becomes nearly impossible to 'go it alone'.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Internet access is proposed as a universal human right by notable authorities and organisations. E.g., https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-internet-as-a-human-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/11/07/the-inter...

jakelazaroff 5y ago

You can always host it yourself. Are you unable to purchase a computer or rent a static IP address? Edit: Actually, with Tor the static IP should be unnecessary. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection.

msla 5y ago
That still places you at the mercy of your Internet provider.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  And that is why my position on this debate is that Internet access- the pipes, the ability to send data from one computer to another that requested the data- should be treated like a utility. I still think a site should be able to deny your request for data as they see fit though
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
> You can always host it yourself. Are you unable to purchase a computer or rent a static IP address? I'm starting to think that can't be counted on as a viable option. It's one thing to deny someone access to a particular platform (e.g. Facebook), it's quite another to deny access to basic infrastructure services (e.g. DNS) for something that isn't actually illegal. The former should not utility-like access rules, but the latter probably should.

habeebtc 5y ago

The fundamental right you are referring to comes from the First Amendment, which begins, "Congress shall make no law...". Practically speaking, this means the government cannot penalize you for what you say. Aside from the fact that what this website is doing is not really speech (it is acting as a data controller), they aren't being penalized by the government, but by the hosting providers. There is no violation of first amendment rights here. Just the (mistaken) nebulous concept of "Free Speech".

ben_w 5y ago
If what is was also what ought to be, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning. Personally I don’t have more than a nebulous idea of what I think the shape of free speech ought to be: {fire in a crowded theatre, parasite medicine during a viral pandemic, homeopathic cancer remedies in general} seem like harmful things to allow, but the reason society (collectively rather than just the individuals within it) should allow and encourage free speech is to find the stuff where we’re all incorrectly confident what is and isn’t true. It combats groupthink. Likewise, who should that freedom bind? Just the government, nobody else? That’s great where communication is mediated by public-owned forums, public-owned post, and public-owned telephone networks, but most communication is now mediated my private companies. Compelling all private companies to be content-neutral in the same way as the government? I don’t see the downsides, but it is a radical change and I am a very long way from any form of law let alone constitutional. But the point is, this is about what isn’t, not what is.
- beej71 5y ago
  The government isn't a private organization in that only the government can put people in jail. This is what freedom of speech is really about: the ability to say just about anything and not be fined or imprisoned. But it has never guaranteed that you'd have a platform from which to say those things... which is the same guarantee you get from Facebook or anywhere else. Goverment: no guarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because of the First Amendment. Facebook: no quarantee of a place to speak, cannot put you in jail because they're not the government. Also, it's unclear what legal mechanism could even be put in place to prevent companies from banning and censoring. And it's fraught with problems because you're trying to guarantee a platform, something the First Amendment never intended. Are companies allowed to delete comments? What if they're old comments? Do you have to keep them forever? Who pays for that? Can you delete porn? The First Amendment allows you to say "f--k" over and over and over as long as you're not threatening. Can you imagine people on, say, a religious board posting that over and over? And the organization wasn't allowed to censor it? It's a massive can of worms. Finally, on my blog I want the freedom to delete any comments for any reason or for no reason.

sebow 5y ago

The only solution would be a bill of rights for the internet. De facto Internet places(which are PRIVATELY-owned) are treated as public places, so why shouldn't the constitutional rights apply in their medium? Not to mention the whole Section 230 f*ckfest. The whole internet is a mess.And while usually messy meant opportunity for innovation and people trying new stuff(see 2000s-2010), right now it's messy in the sense of power-grabbing institutions/entities.