do you think freedom of speech should apply to a private membership forum?

[Endus]

Actually I started with Kant so that we could start a discussion about universal ethical standards, since the basis of his philosophy was to find universal imperatives.

1> You didn't identify any categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperative you DID identify was clearly NOT categorical, and that was the point of my prior post.

2> This only works if your own ethics are themselves Kantian. If you follow a more, saw, Rawlsian perspective on ethics, as I do, the concept of a "categorical imperative" is not just irrelevant, it just doesn't work. Which brings us back to exactly why claiming there are "universal ethical standards" is just wildly wrong.

You are making the argument that the truth should be suppressed in order to not cause harm. Do you consider this a universal standard then, or are you only concerned with not hurting certain people? If you universalize not hurting anyone it would result in chaos. The question then is how do you determine who to hurt and under what circumstances.

Congratulations, you've made the argument as to why your own claim is not a categorical imperative and cannot be considered as such. That was sort of the point.

If you have a system of determining the circumstances under which to use force, and since you tied harm in to speech, then it only seems logical that you must have a system for determining when to censor speech. We can then determine the most ethical manner by which to run such a system. And thereby we return to the question at the heart of the discussion, which is whether you can establish a rational and ethical system by which to moderate speech.

That's not what you originally claimed. You claimed it was possible to establish universal ethical standards. That's not the same thing as establishing a rational ethical system, because plenty of ethical systems recognize subjectivity and context. Rawls' theory of justice is a big one.

The impasse we seem to be at is that you will not concede that there can be a rational system for moderating speech. Your position seems to be that the one with the most power gets to make the rules, and historically such systems rapidly turn into Kafka-esque nightmares because the people running them do not abide by a rational set of rules.

Then you haven't been paying attention, at all. Because I haven't said anything that remotely approaches any of that.

A> I agree that there easily can be rational systems for moderating speech. I don't have an issue with the concept; things like violent threats cause direct harm to their victims and should not be allowed, as a result.

B> My system is not only not based on "the one with the most power gets to make the rules", it's largely Rawlsian, which is the reverse; it seeks to create a just society, and that means that if one person/group has more power, and is abusing that power for self-gain, a just ethical response is to mitigate that power and aid those harmed by that process.

That you somehow conflate that into authoritarian abuse is, frankly, baffling, since it's as close to a direct opposite as you can get.

Furthermore, if you kick somebody off of your property you are claiming the right to exercise some degree of force. If you are claiming the right to control your property simply because you can exert force, then what recourse do you have if somebody stronger than you simply takes your property away? You really would have no recourse in that situation, because under your assumptions that person is considered the highest level of authority over that property, and if you could go to some higher authority in order to take your property back that would mean you really aren't the supreme authority over your own property.

And this is all abject nonsense that rests on your earlier failure to grasp anything that I've actually said, to attack the imaginary version in your head instead.

You haven't universalized the ethical value of honesty. They're only exposing cases where it's not universal. From honesty not being always valuable doesn't follow the idea that the opposite is universally valuable.
On that thought, if you value Kantian honesty, remind me never to hide from Nazis at your house.

Well, at least he went with Kant. I might not LIKE the idea of categorical imperatives, but at least it isn't Bentham's utilitarianism. "If skinning 500 babies alive while they scream makes enough people happier, you should skin those babies."

Edit: I'm not saying Bentham argued that; he was trying to approach ethics from a quantifiable perspective, but the principles he set out necessarily LEAD to stuff like that, unless you insert some other ethical viewpoint to mollify it.

[Deleted]

Well, at least he went with Kant. I might not LIKE the idea of categorical imperatives, but at least it isn't Bentham's utilitarianism. "If skinning 500 babies alive while they scream makes enough people happier, you should skin those babies."

Edit: I'm not saying Bentham argued that; he was trying to approach ethics from a quantifiable perspective, but the principles he set out necessarily LEAD to stuff like that, unless you insert some other ethical viewpoint to mollify it.

No clarification needed. These are common exercises and though experiments in ethics.
I personally think the act of skinning babies would decrease the happiness of some other people immensely making it unproductive utility-wise. Then again, we could -we must, really- also kill all those whose happiness is decreased and replace them with baby-skinning enthusiasts.
Utilitarian ethics are compelling on the surface: the idea that we could measure it all and come up with universal is very attractive to people that hold science in high regard. But one can all too easily reach very silly scenarios.

[Jastall]

Actually I started with Kant so that we could start a discussion about universal ethical standards, since the basis of his philosophy was to find universal imperatives.

Doesn't it already disprove the idea that truth is a universal imperative if some people believe it is not? That's the problem with trying to claim there are universal ethical concepts, even a cursory examination of the world proves that it just isn't true. Even ''you won't kill someone'' gets tossed out the window in many scenarios (self-defense, war, the death penalty for instance), and that's a pretty freaking basic concept that exists in almost every code of law known to man.

And the idea that Endus defends, if I read him correctly, is that kicking you out of your property doesn't actually harm your freedom of speech even in principle; the storekeeper (for instance) doesn't keep you from saying X, he keeps you from saying X on his property. Once you're out of their property, you can keep saying X to your heart's content and no one can stop you, bar instances of hate speech or slander at least, because every law has exceptions.

So you're not stopped from actually saying it, just like I'm not actually stopped from playing soccer because my neighbor doesn't want me playing it on his private property. I can go elsewhere and play it instead, my rights were not infringed, whereas if a policeman arrests me because I play soccer my rights are clearly infringed as it means I cannot play soccer anywhere within the jurisdiction. And my right to play soccer certainly does not cancel out my neighbor's right to allows only those he pleases on his property.

[Venant]

That's not what you originally claimed. You claimed it was possible to establish universal ethical standards. That's not the same thing as establishing a rational ethical system, because plenty of ethical systems recognize subjectivity and context. Rawls' theory of justice is a big one.

Then you haven't been paying attention, at all. Because I haven't said anything that remotely approaches any of that.

A> I agree that there easily can be rational systems for moderating speech. I don't have an issue with the concept; things like violent threats cause direct harm to their victims and should not be allowed, as a result.

B> My system is not only not based on "the one with the most power gets to make the rules", it's largely Rawlsian, which is the reverse; it seeks to create a just society, and that means that if one person/group has more power, and is abusing that power for self-gain, a just ethical response is to mitigate that power and aid those harmed by that process.

That you somehow conflate that into authoritarian abuse is, frankly, baffling, since it's as close to a direct opposite as you can get.

If you believe in a Rawlsian system then why are you using libertarian arguments for property rights to support your initial argument? Wouldn't a Rawlsian solution be to ensure a just and equitable forum in which everyone has equal standing to speak?

I have often cited on this forum the Rawlsian concept of the veil of ignorance, which I believe is applicable to the initial question of this thread in order to derive universal rules for how speech is to be governed on the forum in question:

Whether you are the owner, a moderator, or a forum member; what would be the best balance of freedom of speech allowed on the forum? Such a consideration must take into account that you don't know what your own ideology will be as a theoretical member of this forum. Through such an exercise, you can develop the rules by which the forum *ought* to be governed.

Well, at least he went with Kant. I might not LIKE the idea of categorical imperatives, but at least it isn't Bentham's utilitarianism. "If skinning 500 babies alive while they scream makes enough people happier, you should skin those babies."

Edit: I'm not saying Bentham argued that; he was trying to approach ethics from a quantifiable perspective, but the principles he set out necessarily LEAD to stuff like that, unless you insert some other ethical viewpoint to mollify it.

No clarification needed. These are common exercises and though experiments in ethics.
I personally think the act of skinning babies would decrease the happiness of some other people immensely making it unproductive utility-wise. Then again, we could -we must, really- also kill all those whose happiness is decreased and replace them with baby-skinning enthusiasts.
Utilitarian ethics are compelling on the surface: the idea that we could measure it all and come up with universal is very attractive to people that hold science in high regard. But one can all too easily reach very silly scenarios.

I would defend utilitarianism in practice as an ideology that seeks to avoid the worst case scenario in which everyone ends up being skinned alive. I think the thought experiment of whether a utopia that exists at the cost of an innocent baby being tortured for all eternity is actually hell has many parallels with how the real world works. Though to throw a wrench into the thought experiment, make it so that the suffering is invisible to the happy people and its a wicked allegory for modern corporate media.

[judgementofantonidas]

as the title asks, do you think it applies or do you think it should apply if it doesnt already?

If the forum is hosted on a U.S. server then absolutely U.S. laws and rights should apply.

[Canpinter]

in any legal sense no, but i do think those with control over the modern means of mass communication have some duty to allow people to be free as realistically possible when using their site.

[Venant]

Doesn't it already disprove the idea that truth is a universal imperative if some people believe it is not? That's the problem with trying to claim there are universal ethical concepts, even a cursory examination of the world proves that it just isn't true. Even ''you won't kill someone'' gets tossed out the window in many scenarios (self-defense, war, the death penalty for instance), and that's a pretty freaking basic concept that exists in almost every code of law known to man.

And the idea that Endus defends, if I read him correctly, is that kicking you out of your property doesn't actually harm your freedom of speech even in principle; the storekeeper (for instance) doesn't keep you from saying X, he keeps you from saying X on his property. Once you're out of their property, you can keep saying X to your heart's content and no one can stop you, bar instances of hate speech or slander at least, because every law has exceptions.

So you're not stopped from actually saying it, just like I'm not actually stopped from playing soccer because my neighbor doesn't want me playing it on his private property. I can go elsewhere and play it instead, my rights were not infringed, whereas if a policeman arrests me because I play soccer my rights are clearly infringed as it means I cannot play soccer anywhere within the jurisdiction. And my right to play soccer certainly does not cancel out my neighbor's right to allows only those he pleases on his property.

By your logic, since an airline is also private property, if all airlines end up being under the control of people of a particular ideology who disagree with you, it would be in their right to ban you from all airlines. Would your solution to this be to build your own airplane?

What you are ignorant to is the nature of ideologies to infiltrate into positions of power. Free speech is one protection against such infiltration, so long as it is maintained as a universally preferable value (as in, people generally prefer more speech than less).

- - - Updated - - -

Kant's categorical imperatives aren't dependent on belief, but an ability to be generalized to the point of universality.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

It's a deontological ethical system with a consequentialist tinge, in that the fitness of some behavior or another as a maxim is judged on the basis of whether the outcome would be desirable should everyone act in the same fashion. That there is disagreement about how one should or should not act wouldn't pose any more of a challenge to the validity of Kantian ethics than disagreement about the mass of some object would pose a challenge to the validity of physics, though it is a rather silly ethical system overall.

Kant is foundational for Rawls, the Original Position comes out of the need to reconcile the categorical imperative with principles of fairness.

[Endus]

If you believe in a Rawlsian system then why are you using libertarian arguments for property rights to support your initial argument? Wouldn't a Rawlsian solution be to ensure a just and equitable forum in which everyone has equal standing to speak?

No, because that creates an unjust assault on the property owner's rights.

The person's free to say their piece out in public. That's all freedom of speech requires. Nobody is restricting their speech by kicking them out of a particular location.

I have often cited on this forum the Rawlsian concept of the veil of ignorance, which I believe is applicable to the initial question of this thread in order to derive universal rules for how speech is to be governed on the forum in question:

Whether you are the owner, a moderator, or a forum member; what would be the best balance of freedom of speech allowed on the forum? Such a consideration must take into account that you don't know what your own ideology will be as a theoretical member of this forum. Through such an exercise, you can develop the rules by which the forum *ought* to be governed.

And? This has nothing to do with anything. While I would agree with this, in principle, for a forum I owned and ran, it doesn't apply to anyone else unless they also agree with me. There's no universality, not without rule of law enshrining this sort of thing.

Ethics inform your personal choices. The only time you get a shared ethical obligation is in situations like professional associations, where agreeing to the association's ethics is an article of membership. And even then, breaching those ethics is not automatically "wrong", it just means the association may terminate your membership.

[Canpinter]

No, because that creates an unjust assault on the property owner's rights.

The person's free to say their piece out in public. That's all freedom of speech requires. Nobody is restricting their speech by kicking them out of a particular location.



And? This has nothing to do with anything. While I would agree with this, in principle, for a forum I owned and ran, it doesn't apply to anyone else unless they also agree with me. There's no universality, not without rule of law enshrining this sort of thing.

Ethics inform your personal choices. The only time you get a shared ethical obligation is in situations like professional associations, where agreeing to the association's ethics is an article of membership. And even then, breaching those ethics is not automatically "wrong", it just means the association may terminate your membership.

there is no universally agreed ethical rules but that dose not preclude the existence of moral trends, or ethical rules that we simply have yet to properly understand.

[Breccia]

No.

The Constitution protects us from the goverment. YouTube, Reddit, and MMO-Champion are not trampling on anyone's rights. If you don't like their rules, leave. Enough people leaving hurts their advertising budget. Problem solved.

[Nakotsu]

as the title asks, do you think it applies or do you think it should apply if it doesnt already?

My words flow freely everywhere. IF i get banned on a forum oh well.

[Jastall]

By your logic, since an airline is also private property, if all airlines end up being under the control of people of a particular ideology who disagree with you, it would be in their right to ban you from all airlines. Would your solution to this be to build your own airplane?

What you are ignorant to is the nature of ideologies to infiltrate into positions of power. Free speech is one protection against such infiltration, so long as it is maintained as a universally preferable value (as in, people generally prefer more speech than less).

Well first, you're using a ridiculously unlikely scenario to defend your position, so I don't think this is being particularly honest intellectually speaking. I might as well say free speech is bad because someone might convince everyone on Earth to start murdering each other. It's a silly position that can only be defended if I cook up a silly scenario.

Second, tied to the above, taking any logic to its extreme is bad; that's why there are exceptions built into many laws and that principles can in some situations be bent to accommodate reality.

So no, my logic doesn't ''lead'' to such a scenario. I'm not overly interested in abstract thought experiments, but rather on the actual effects of principles and ideas. And the actual effect of letting people police what is said and done on their private property is not infringing on their rights with yours. So, free speech only applies to the government. We agree that more speech is better, but that only goes as far as other rights go.

[Merkava]

as the title asks, do you think it applies or do you think it should apply if it doesnt already?

Whats the issue here, exactly? Is it whether we think the right to free speech should extend to a private forum meaning that the forum owners can be held liable for violating a users free speech? Or is it simply saying that private forums should seek to extend to their users the same spirit or free speech that the First Amendment embodies? I would disagree with the first, but probably agree with the second.

[Venant]

Well first, you're using a ridiculously unlikely scenario to defend your position, so I don't think this is being particularly honest intellectually speaking. I might as well say free speech is bad because someone might convince everyone on Earth to start murdering each other. It's a silly position that can only be defended if I cook up a silly scenario.

Second, tied to the above, taking any logic to its extreme is bad; that's why there are exceptions built into many laws and that principles can in some situations be bent to accommodate reality.

So no, my logic doesn't ''lead'' to such a scenario. I'm not overly interested in abstract thought experiments, but rather on the actual effects of principles and ideas. And the actual effect of letting people police what is said and done on their private property is not infringing on their rights with yours. So, free speech only applies to the government. We agree that more speech is better, but that only goes as far as other rights go.

Then just replace 'airline' with 'social media platform' and you have the same situation, and suggesting 'well if you don't like having your opinions censored just build your own facebook' is as ridiculous as saying 'go build your own airplane'. Censorship allows for a greater centralization of power, and in how the world operates today it can alter the reality perceived by large groups of people through control of information. Individual speech is not nearly as dangerous as mass censorship on major social platforms, especially when that speech goes hand in hand with information disseminated by the government to create their own desired effect.

[Noradin]

Or he could simply say that gay people should be a protected class. Like I get that you don't like his position, but you really don't have a case for hypocrisy and I'm not sure what it would matter either way. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy and for good reason.

You misunderstand him, he regularly comes into discussions, makes claims of hyporcipsy against others and then ultimately argues in favour of anarchism.
He is not interested in understanding your point, but in muddying the water about the whole concept.

- - - Updated - - -

This really only makes sense if you're the sort of person who thinks racism is only something white people do to non-white people, but those same laws protect the majority group in each category every bit as much as they do the minority groups. The majority, by virtue of being the majority, just generally has less use for those protections because they tend to exist as a product of social norms and identities in the first place.

He is the sort of person who thinks there should be no laws to limit his freedoms.

[Venant]

No, because that creates an unjust assault on the property owner's rights.

The person's free to say their piece out in public. That's all freedom of speech requires. Nobody is restricting their speech by kicking them out of a particular location.

And? This has nothing to do with anything. While I would agree with this, in principle, for a forum I owned and ran, it doesn't apply to anyone else unless they also agree with me. There's no universality, not without rule of law enshrining this sort of thing.

Ethics inform your personal choices. The only time you get a shared ethical obligation is in situations like professional associations, where agreeing to the association's ethics is an article of membership. And even then, breaching those ethics is not automatically "wrong", it just means the association may terminate your membership.

And where does the property owner get his rights to that property from? You have stated yourself that people are incapable of imposing ethics upon other people, but is not the existence of property rights an imposition of a form of ethics upon other people? Namely the ethical position that there are 'property rights' which ought not to be violated?

Of course, if you imply that such rights are supported by a threat of force, then you are also making the statement that property rights don't actually exist, only the right to use force and how much of this right you possess is determined by how much force you are able to muster.

[Noradin]

No clarification needed. These are common exercises and though experiments in ethics.

Go preach in a seminar about ethics then

- - - Updated - - -

If you believe in a Rawlsian system then why are you using libertarian arguments for property rights to support your initial argument? Wouldn't a Rawlsian solution be to ensure a just and equitable forum in which everyone has equal standing to speak?

Only if the forum was all there is to the world.
Otherwise: Not necessarily.

[Heladys]

No, of course not.

[Mayhem]

By this logic, you have freedom of speech in North Korea too.

You have never read up on the definition of freedom of speech have you?

[Venant]

I don't believe that ethics can be applied universally. They can be applied individually. Everyone can be a decent human being but some people are just not worth it. Shit thing is that, those that are not worth it are often in position to define "rules". But rules are made to be broken

Without some form of universal ethics, then how can 'rights' exist? Endus claims that property rights exist, but he also makes the claim that he is not allowed to impose his own ethics upon others. What happens when Endus meets somebody who doesn't recognize these rights, Endus by his own reasoning would have no justification for insisting that this other person recognize those rights.

Rights are either universal and they do exist, or they do not exist at all. People who insist that rights exist yet also insist that you cannot make universal statements of how those same people ought to conduct themselves actually seem to be contradicting themselves.