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

[Endus]

Then why are we ignoring the preferences that precede the establishment of laws? Wouldn't one such basic precedent be: "I don't want to be murdered, therefore there should be a law against murder"? When the OP questions what the rules of a theoretical forum should be, is it not the same as proposing the laws of a theoretical state, ie an ideal state?

We're not "ignoring" anything. There's just little reason to turn back to those precepts alone, when we have a state protecting these rights already.

Isn't a major conflict with the social justice of Rawls and Libertarianism that in order to achieve a just society there is a need for re-distribution, which is antithetical to a absolute property rights?

It isn't a "major conflict" at all, since "absolute rights" aren't a thing to begin with in Rawlsian ethics.

For libertarianism, depends on the flavour. The American-style Libertarian is more of a Republican-lite than a true libertarian.

Under your system, there seems to be no response to a situation in which the state itself starts engaging in wanton murder and mayhem. If they put you in front of a firing squad and you were asked if you wished to make a speech in defense of why they shouldn't execute you, it sounds like you would respond with a shrug.

This is just a repetition of the wrongheaded nonsense from earlier in the thread.

None of us are deriving our views from the government. We're deriving them from base principles, just like you. It just happens that our base principles largely align with said governments.

You then falsely present that as us blindly believing what the government says, and that's not just incorrect, it's wildly fucking dishonest, since I've already explained this several times to you.

[Ghazan Julio]

Yeah. I think I can say whatever I want, my freedom of speech is unlimited. The consequences however are still there.

[Adam Jensen]

No.

Because a private entity should have the freedom to decide what standards it wants its members to abide by. This is entirely different than the government, because one is free to leave a private entity if one doesn't like them. One cannot so easily leave a government's authority.

So if MMO-C says "no one may discuss religion" that's fine, because MMO-C doesn't want flamewars on their forums. And if people don't like it, they can go somewhere else. But if the government says the same thing, that's not fine, because that impedes on people's right to religion and free speech. If people didn't like it, it's much harder for them to go somewhere else. It ceases to be a free society.

[Canpinter]

One problem to consider is the fact that the internet has no space that isn't privately owned, there is no street corner to stand on. i think this dose put some moral duty on privately owned forums to be as open with speech as is reasonably possible.

[Venant]

I might regret this but where do you think they come from?

I tend towards Locke's interpretation that individuals have certain rights that are not debatable. I see the inalienable right of freedom as intertwined with the right to freedom of thought and expression. Therefore any system, whether it be a government or an online messageboard, is improved by allowing more expression and therefore showing greater respect towards your rights as an individual.

The state/society/institutions exists as something of a trade off where you might give up the natural right to punch other people in exchange from a social agreement that you won't be punched.

- - - Updated - - -

We're not "ignoring" anything. There's just little reason to turn back to those precepts alone, when we have a state protecting these rights already.

The initial question of this thread did not specify a real-world country in which the theoretical forum is subject to laws or customs. Where are you getting this 'state' that is protecting these rights if we are talking about a hypothetical situation?

It isn't a "major conflict" at all, since "absolute rights" aren't a thing to begin with in Rawlsian ethics.

For libertarianism, depends on the flavour. The American-style Libertarian is more of a Republican-lite than a true libertarian.

Even though Rawls recognizes the importance of fairness in terms of the individual, he ultimately leans towards collectivism due to the idea of a society or government creating a greater level of (artificial) fairness than is allowed by the free market. In practice, the imposition of social justice principles often creates radically unfair conditions for individuals.

This is just a repetition of the wrongheaded nonsense from earlier in the thread.

None of us are deriving our views from the government. We're deriving them from base principles, just like you. It just happens that our base principles largely align with said governments.

You then falsely present that as us blindly believing what the government says, and that's not just incorrect, it's wildly fucking dishonest, since I've already explained this several times to you.

You argued that base principles are 'meaningless' without taking action. This is paradoxical, because without those base principles you never would take action. At this point I think we might have to forget about Rawls and go all the way back to Thomas Aquinas and establish that one thing proceeds from another.

I find it odd that you are accusing me of being dishonest when you are disingenuously dancing around the matter of discussing base principles when the initial topic of discussion here was an extremely simple hypothetical situation, which would seem to be ideal for discussion of such principles.

[Theodarzna]

"People" tend to not be an amorphous blob and have different sentiments about morality. Im sure i could find individuals who think the ancient athenian conception of democracy is moral. Likewise i would feel perfectly MORAL robbing some rich asshole to feed a starving kid even though you may not. These disputes are ultimately why force is required. Without it law is meaningless.

Then how do you explain the startling longevity and relative stability and peace of societies that live without the large bureaucratic state machinery to guide their moral behavior?

I am fascinated because it is usually the less white individuals on this planet who live or have recently lived without such State structures, and I had been unaware of their apparent moral degeneracy.

[zEmini]

That these places are popular social media outlets doesn't make them any less of a private space hosted by a company, however. They still have rules on what you can and cannot post.

And I'd hate to use Reddit, Facebook and Twitter as an actual example of how serious discussion should be handled, but maybe that's just me.

I understand, but could you imagine the day when all three of these try and censor a certain type of opinion to further their agenda and profits? They have billions of people who use them, and that in itself can be a powerful weapon.

[Endus]

I tend towards Locke's interpretation that individuals have certain rights that are not debatable. I see the inalienable right of freedom as intertwined with the right to freedom of thought and expression. Therefore any system, whether it be a government or an online messageboard, is improved by allowing more expression and therefore showing greater respect towards your rights as an individual.

So you'd argue that I should be able to scream four letter words and death threats at toddlers? Any attempt to get me to stop, after all, is an infringement of my "freedom of expression".

The initial question of this thread did not specify a real-world country in which the theoretical forum is subject to laws or customs. Where are you getting this 'state' that is protecting these rights if we are talking about a hypothetical situation?

Pick any state you like.

Without a state enforcing them, there's no such thing as "rights". In exactly the same way that, without a state enforcing it, there's no such thing as law. These things are fundamentally defined by state enforcement and protection.

They only exist with any kind of international agreement on the concept because of the work of the UN in enshrining some collective sense of human rights in international treaty law.


Here's why your claim about "natural" rights is hokum; if you live under the thumb of anyone who doesn't respect that particular right, then you don't have that right. In a hypothetical country that kills citizens who speak out against the regime, claiming you have "freedom of speech" while being dragged in front of the firing line isn't an appeal that's going to convince anyone, because you don't have any such right, there. Because this is entirely about the state's enforcement and protection.

You argued that base principles are 'meaningless' without taking action. This is paradoxical, because without those base principles you never would take action.

It's not "paradoxical" at all.

Having a good idea for a novel means absolutely nothing if you don't ever actually write that novel. Until you find some way to establish protections for those rights, those rights are nothing more than an idea in your head, no different than any other idea in any other head. It's as "real" as someone's fantasy about making scuba suits for cats, or whatever.

I find it odd that you are accusing me of being dishonest when you are disingenuously dancing around the matter of discussing base principles when the initial topic of discussion here was an extremely simple hypothetical situation, which would seem to be ideal for discussion of such principles.

I'm accusing you of being dishonest because you keep claiming my argument is A, when I have explicitly stated multiple times that it is in no way A. And nothing I have said is remotely suggestive of that.

By ignoring that, and continuing, it's moved from "being wrong about A" to "deliberately misrepresenting your opponent, out of malice".

[Edge-]

Then how do you explain the startling longevity and relative stability and peace of societies that live without the large bureaucratic state machinery to guide their moral behavior?

Such as? Curious as to which societies in particular you're thinking of, because that can dramatically alter the reason(s) as to why.

[Deleted]

Here's why your claim about "natural" rights is hokum; if you live under the thumb of anyone who doesn't respect that particular right, then you don't have that right. In a hypothetical country that kills citizens who speak out against the regime, claiming you have "freedom of speech" while being dragged in front of the firing line isn't an appeal that's going to convince anyone, because you don't have any such right, there.

Unless you could breed or genetically engineer a populace, there will be a limit to how far they could go with doing that. So there are some natural rights in a sense.

Having a good idea for a novel means absolutely nothing if you don't ever actually write that novel. Until you find some way to establish protections for those rights, those rights are nothing more than an idea in your head, no different than any other idea in any other head. It's as "real" as someone's fantasy about making scuba suits for cats, or whatever.

The fantasy is a reality !!!!

[Felya]

Then how do you explain the startling longevity and relative stability and peace of societies that live without the large bureaucratic state machinery to guide their moral behavior?

Try saying the same, but without the 'startling' or 'large'. Both are extremely subjective...

I am fascinated because it is usually the less white individuals on this planet who live or have recently lived without such State structures, and I had been unaware of their apparent moral degeneracy.

What are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Such as? Curious as to which societies in particular you're thinking of, because that can dramatically alter the reason(s) as to why.

Think of society that is consolidated into a singular entity. I think this is funny in context:

North Korean dictator trims bureaucracy by murdering surplus uncle

http://humanevents.com/2013/12/13/no...surplus-uncle/

[Glorious Leader]

Then how do you explain the startling longevity and relative stability and peace of societies that live without the large bureaucratic state machinery to guide their moral behavior?

I am fascinated because it is usually the less white individuals on this planet who live or have recently lived without such State structures, and I had been unaware of their apparent moral degeneracy.

Most of those states still exists within organized social.structures that reinforce and or coerce behaviors either through legal structute or tradition or spiritual beliefs. Even pre capitalist gift exchange socities functioned within this context as well. "Large beurocratic.states" whatever the fuck that means im not sure but they arent the only means by which societies are organized.

Are certain acts moral on an individual level beyond state or societal pressures? Perhaps but i would argue those are very narrow examples and not true for every instance or wide enough to support that all morality is not a function of coercion.

[The Penguin]

Only when the moderators shift from enforcing the rules to enforcing an agenda. By definition it ceases to be a "forum" then.

[Venant]

So you'd argue that I should be able to scream four letter words and death threats at toddlers? Any attempt to get me to stop, after all, is an infringement of my "freedom of expression".

Well that depends if you are within a society or not, since a society usually has norms that help to prevent such issues. If you are outside of society then you would likely keep your toddlers a safe distance away from screaming lunatics.

Pick any state you like.

Without a state enforcing them, there's no such thing as "rights". In exactly the same way that, without a state enforcing it, there's no such thing as law. These things are fundamentally defined by state enforcement and protection.

They only exist with any kind of international agreement on the concept because of the work of the UN in enshrining some collective sense of human rights in international treaty law.


Here's why your claim about "natural" rights is hokum; if you live under the thumb of anyone who doesn't respect that particular right, then you don't have that right. In a hypothetical country that kills citizens who speak out against the regime, claiming you have "freedom of speech" while being dragged in front of the firing line isn't an appeal that's going to convince anyone, because you don't have any such right, there. Because this is entirely about the state's enforcement and protection.



It's not "paradoxical" at all.

Having a good idea for a novel means absolutely nothing if you don't ever actually write that novel. Until you find some way to establish protections for those rights, those rights are nothing more than an idea in your head, no different than any other idea in any other head. It's as "real" as someone's fantasy about making scuba suits for cats, or whatever.

Well actually the concept of inalienable rights is that even if somebody forcibly prevents you from exercising those rights, or you *choose* not to exercise those rights, you still possess those rights. These rights are fundamental to the concept of human dignity, as well as part of the rational reason for why you ought not just indiscriminately murder people even when not being policed by a state power.

I believe that the fundamental misunderstanding between us here is that you are viewing everything through a political lens. You are failing to realize that pointing a gun at somebody (imposing force) is not a rational argument. I think you are stuck in a logical loop of: State imposes force > Rights are granted by the state > People agree to let the state impose force > State imposes force.

I'm accusing you of being dishonest because you keep claiming my argument is A, when I have explicitly stated multiple times that it is in no way A. And nothing I have said is remotely suggestive of that.

By ignoring that, and continuing, it's moved from "being wrong about A" to "deliberately misrepresenting your opponent, out of malice".

I think its a bit far to suggest that Malice arises from a mere conversation over the internet. I see this more as political reasoning, under which it is considered a virtue to *not* be persuaded away from your position while at the same time seeing those who disagree with you as malicious enemies. I have actually found this dialogue beneficial, and feel no malice towards others who have engaged with me here.

[Danner]

But...it's not. You might believe that, but it's factually wrong.

Look, whether it is in technicality or effect does not matter. Your power company cannot disconnect you just because they do not like your face. They have an effective monopoly on delivering power to your home, and there just ain't any alternatives. As such, they have an obligation to accommodate you regardless of whether they like you or not. That's the cost of being a monopoly. You as a consumer just don't have any alternatives. And while you certainly could "live without electricity", there are laws to prevent you from having to resort to that.

Sure, Facebook can ban people. They do all the time. Their site, their rules. But I am saying the same principle should apply here. Hear me out.

Facebook is the #1 forum provider for the modern world. So when they ban Norwegian authors for posting pictures from the vietnam war, it's not just for these people to "move on" to some other forum. Well, they can. But Facebook is already controlling the comment sections of all major newspapers in Norway. You must log in with a facebook account to post a reply to a newspaper opinion piece these days. Being banned from facebook also means being banned from participating in the norwegian society debate. That's a big deal (tm).

The moment Facebook censors valuable participants in the societal debate, they are using their rights as the forum host. But in censoring voices in the societal debate, they are failing their role as carriers of the societal debate. It is not acceptable that the carrier of the societal debate squelches voices that they do not like. As such, one of these two has to give. The two are not compatible.

And it doesn't matter if everyone agrees that facebook can do this. It's still wrong.

[DJ117]

Yes, but the SJWs of this forum would die from being triggered all the time. I wouldn't mind, but the moderators are left-oriented, thus, prefer censorship.

[Runenwächter]

Yes.

Hear me out though. When the US constitution and my own countries equivalent were thought up, no one could have thought about the internet as it exists today. The marketplace of ideas was a physical space and the town square usually was a public space.

That does not hold true for the reality of the 21st century. The exchange of ideas has migrated to digital space, most of which is in the hand of private owners.

Now there are two types of "censorship" that arent censorship in the classical definition of the word:

one being the owner administrating and enforcing their house rules, as biased as they may be. I would be ok with that, but sadly some of the platforms such as social media giants, have become the marketplace of ideas, the place that was previously a public property is now privately owned. The excange of ideas can only be fair and just, if a balance is enforced via extending an essential right to these spaces, even if that infringes on the rights of the business to enforce their own rules and prejudices.

the second, most nefarious one is the one that worries me most. free speech is guranteed in public space and physical space, yet when it comes to the privately owned platforms on the internet, the government can enforce censorshit via proxy.
This would be in the form of laws, that exert pressure on the platform owners by threatening them with ridiculously high fines and possible punishment. The one threatened directly is thus not the one speaking, but the one providing the plaform on which the individual expresses his opinion. The second trick is to hold the platform onwer responsbile "only" when the oppinions (il)legality they provide a platform for is "obvious" and require them to decide up an action within a timeframe of 48 hours (or somesuch). What is obvious and what is not is easy to explain in its extremes. But what is the smallest obvious thing and why is the the line exactly where you argue where it is?
Thats a term so vague, so uncertain, that for several reasons, it can only lead to one possible outcome: Preemptive deletion and obedience.
It would require a team of experts, and since legal repercussions are imminent that means lawyers, to weight the pros and cons of keeping each individual post that has been criticized on the platform at the risk of extreme cost. There is no possible scenario where the benefit of sticking up for the expressed opinion outweights the cost of individual assesment through personel and the risk of being fined in the millions. This is a economic reality, sticking up for questionable oppinions would equal martyrdom.
At billions of posts a day, even if a fraction of a percent is what we are talking about here, that would be tens of thousands of cases a day. No one, no state, no government, no company has the capacity to provide that.

In the grand sceme of things I think we are better of with enforcing and protecting the right to freedom of speech on platforms that have become essential points for the exchange of ideas to a sufficiently large public. We might discuss where we draw the line where that is, but for the here and now, I think facebook and twitter would be a good place to start.

[Ghazan Julio]

Yes, but the SJWs of this forum would die from being triggered all the time. I wouldn't mind, but the moderators are left-oriented, thus, prefer censorship.

Yep that sums it all up. Crybaby pussies ruin it for the rest of us.

[Ishayu]

No, but I do think that there should be more free speech websites on the internet, and I actually think Universities should take an active role in that. It is the role of a university to foster free exchange of ideas and open conversation and to protect freedom of speech. We all agree it's their duty in the real world, so why not online?

[Glorious Leader]

Well that depends if you are within a society or not, since a society usually has norms that help to prevent such issues. If you are outside of society then you would likely keep your toddlers a safe distance away from screaming lunatics.



Well actually the concept of inalienable rights is that even if somebody forcibly prevents you from exercising those rights, or you *choose* not to exercise those rights, you still possess those rights. These rights are fundamental to the concept of human dignity, as well as part of the rational reason for why you ought not just indiscriminately murder people even when not being policed by a state power.

I believe that the fundamental misunderstanding between us here is that you are viewing everything through a political lens. You are failing to realize that pointing a gun at somebody (imposing force) is not a rational argument. I think you are stuck in a logical loop of: State imposes force > Rights are granted by the state > People agree to let the state impose force > State imposes force.



I think its a bit far to suggest that Malice arises from a mere conversation over the internet. I see this more as political reasoning, under which it is considered a virtue to *not* be persuaded away from your position while at the same time seeing those who disagree with you as malicious enemies. I have actually found this dialogue beneficial, and feel no malice towards others who have engaged with me here.

This is actually quite ammusing but mostly nonsense. Without the power to actualize those rights they are merely words on paper and the reality is this almost entirely recognized by any serious moral philosopher. Im sure you believe you have a right to property but i dont so when i come steal from you who wins?