Freedom of speech and where it appliesWhat is Trump's official line on Freedom of Speech?Wikipedia, Context and Freedom of SpeechWhat limitations to freedom of speech are there in the US and Canada?What limitations to freedom of speech are there in France?Why does the US Constitution mention freedom of the press in addition to freedom of speech?Is 'identity politics' vs 'freedom of speech' a valid dichotomy?Have governments successfully managed controversial speech?Does EU freedom of speech allow a license plate that taunts a political party?Is there a ranking of countries' freedom of speech for non-journalists?Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government in India?

Bob has never been a M before

How do I extrude a face to a single vertex

Global amount of publications over time

How do ground effect vehicles perform turns?

Proof of Lemma: Every nonzero integer can be written as a product of primes

Is there a conventional notation or name for the slip angle?

Translation of Scottish 16th century church stained glass

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

Can somebody explain Brexit in a few child-proof sentences?

Confusion on Parallelogram

Find last 3 digits of this monster number

Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?

Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?

Drawing ramified coverings with tikz

Is it possible to use .desktop files to open local pdf files on specific pages with a browser?

Why does Async/Await work properly when the loop is inside the async function and not the other way around?

Indicating multiple different modes of speech (fantasy language or telepathy)

When quoting, must I also copy hyphens used to divide words that continue on the next line?

Constructing Group Divisible Designs - Algorithms?

Melting point of aspirin, contradicting sources

How to align and center standalone amsmath equations?

Why has "pence" been used in this sentence, not "pences"?

What is the gram­mat­i­cal term for “‑ed” words like these?

Is XSS in canonical link possible?



Freedom of speech and where it applies


What is Trump's official line on Freedom of Speech?Wikipedia, Context and Freedom of SpeechWhat limitations to freedom of speech are there in the US and Canada?What limitations to freedom of speech are there in France?Why does the US Constitution mention freedom of the press in addition to freedom of speech?Is 'identity politics' vs 'freedom of speech' a valid dichotomy?Have governments successfully managed controversial speech?Does EU freedom of speech allow a license plate that taunts a political party?Is there a ranking of countries' freedom of speech for non-journalists?Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government in India?













20















There seems to be multiple definitions of freedom of speech out there, and I hear a lot about how companies like Google and Twitter are exempt from this as they are private entities and freedom of speech only applies to the government. This seems to contradict the following definitions:



Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights




Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.




Wikipedia




Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.




Article 19 clearly states "regardless of frontiers" and therefore surely these companies are violating human rights when they censor people on their platforms?



Wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship..." which surely means that private entities fall under this definition too, which means they are violating free speech as well by censoring people on their platforms?



What I am trying to ask is, does freedom of speech apply to private entities, and if not, why?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 12





    As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

    – LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    yesterday






  • 2





    @LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

    – NL_Derek
    yesterday






  • 1





    And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

    – Bobby
    19 hours ago











  • It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

    – Lex
    7 hours ago











  • An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

    – Hasse1987
    7 hours ago
















20















There seems to be multiple definitions of freedom of speech out there, and I hear a lot about how companies like Google and Twitter are exempt from this as they are private entities and freedom of speech only applies to the government. This seems to contradict the following definitions:



Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights




Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.




Wikipedia




Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.




Article 19 clearly states "regardless of frontiers" and therefore surely these companies are violating human rights when they censor people on their platforms?



Wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship..." which surely means that private entities fall under this definition too, which means they are violating free speech as well by censoring people on their platforms?



What I am trying to ask is, does freedom of speech apply to private entities, and if not, why?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 12





    As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

    – LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    yesterday






  • 2





    @LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

    – NL_Derek
    yesterday






  • 1





    And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

    – Bobby
    19 hours ago











  • It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

    – Lex
    7 hours ago











  • An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

    – Hasse1987
    7 hours ago














20












20








20


2






There seems to be multiple definitions of freedom of speech out there, and I hear a lot about how companies like Google and Twitter are exempt from this as they are private entities and freedom of speech only applies to the government. This seems to contradict the following definitions:



Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights




Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.




Wikipedia




Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.




Article 19 clearly states "regardless of frontiers" and therefore surely these companies are violating human rights when they censor people on their platforms?



Wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship..." which surely means that private entities fall under this definition too, which means they are violating free speech as well by censoring people on their platforms?



What I am trying to ask is, does freedom of speech apply to private entities, and if not, why?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












There seems to be multiple definitions of freedom of speech out there, and I hear a lot about how companies like Google and Twitter are exempt from this as they are private entities and freedom of speech only applies to the government. This seems to contradict the following definitions:



Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights




Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.




Wikipedia




Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.




Article 19 clearly states "regardless of frontiers" and therefore surely these companies are violating human rights when they censor people on their platforms?



Wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship..." which surely means that private entities fall under this definition too, which means they are violating free speech as well by censoring people on their platforms?



What I am trying to ask is, does freedom of speech apply to private entities, and if not, why?







human-rights freedom-of-speech






share|improve this question









New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









JJJ

4,94622144




4,94622144






New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









OwenOwen

1043




1043




New contributor




Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Owen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 12





    As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

    – LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    yesterday






  • 2





    @LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

    – NL_Derek
    yesterday






  • 1





    And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

    – Bobby
    19 hours ago











  • It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

    – Lex
    7 hours ago











  • An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

    – Hasse1987
    7 hours ago













  • 12





    As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

    – LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    yesterday






  • 2





    @LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

    – NL_Derek
    yesterday






  • 1





    And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

    – Bobby
    19 hours ago











  • It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

    – Lex
    7 hours ago











  • An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

    – Hasse1987
    7 hours ago








12




12





As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

– LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
yesterday





As usual, xkcd sums it up very nicely: xkcd.com/1357

– LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
yesterday




2




2





@LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

– NL_Derek
yesterday





@LeopardSkinPillBoxHat I agree, but don't forget to view the mouseover text

– NL_Derek
yesterday




1




1





And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

– Bobby
19 hours ago





And while we are at it, just because you vote (up or down) on something does not make it a democracy! That is another common misconception which goes with this one.

– Bobby
19 hours ago













It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

– Lex
7 hours ago





It would probably help to get better answers if you specify whether you care about companies infringing free speech as a principle or in a legal sense (and in what locale if the latter). You might also want to be specific if you care about private entities acting on speech platformed by themselves or expressed elsewhere.

– Lex
7 hours ago













An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

– Hasse1987
7 hours ago






An issue being glossed over in the xkcd link and many of the responses is that the distinction between private company and state actor can blur. Eg, in many states, CA particularly, a privately owned mall can be penalized for restricting free speech. Courts have mostly declined to extend this "public square" analysis to internet fora like google/twitter, but the Supreme Court came close in 2017 and pending cases bear directly on this question.

– Hasse1987
7 hours ago











5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















42














This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms.



This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but it doesn't imply that any public or private organization has to offer their platform for them to do so. For example, if I write a political article it's up to me to find a support who agrees to publish it, I can't sue a newspaper because they refuse to publish it. Similarly, if I have my own website where people leave comments, I'm allowed to delete any comment I want since I'm the owner of the publication.



The same applies to Google or Twitter: they provide a platform but they can decide what kind of content they accept or not (users agree to their rules when they validate the terms of use).



This is why "freedom of speech only applies to the government", in the sense that only a government could prosecute somebody for expressing their opinions. In western democracies, governments are not allowed do that since freedom of speech is protected. By contrast, there are many countries where people can go to jail for expressing their opinions: this is what the absence of freedom of speech means.






share|improve this answer


















  • 4





    This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

    – Owen
    yesterday






  • 23





    @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

    – tim
    yesterday






  • 11





    @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

    – Erwan
    yesterday






  • 2





    Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

    – WGroleau
    yesterday






  • 1





    The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

    – Hasse1987
    yesterday



















16














Consider where your line of thought will lead:



  • You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used?


  • Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship if you stop me from coming in and singing loudly and badly? Or would you simply be exercising your right to determine whom to invite and whom to throw out?


  • Imagine that for the next election, I put a campaign poster on your front lawn. Would it be censorship if you stop me from doing that? Or would you simply be exercising your right to use your front lawn as you see fit?


These three examples were about the private living place of an individual citizen. But think through the same examples with a mom-and-pop grocery store.



There are some reasons why it is not quite straightforward to extend this to Facebook, Google and the like:



  • Most countries have different laws for telecoms providers and news media. News media may e.g. be required to distinguish between editoral content and paid advertising, and they may be sued if what they print breaks laws. Telecoms providers are generally not liable for the content of communication which goes over their services, but they must not look into the content, either.
    The big internet companies seem to pick-and-choose if they want to be considered news or a telecommunications provider.

  • Either way, they have reached a size and market share that would justify anti-trust measures to break them up. Of course doing that would make the concept of a Facebook or Twitter impossible -- there could be no platform where "almost everybody" talks.





share|improve this answer


















  • 4





    I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

    – Owen
    yesterday






  • 8





    @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

    – o.m.
    yesterday







  • 3





    @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

    – user21878
    yesterday






  • 2





    I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

    – Obie 2.0
    yesterday







  • 4





    @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

    – o.m.
    yesterday


















9














Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately.



To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise violated by the government as a reprisal to any spoken opinion. It does not protect you in case your speech is considered as an attack (violence) upon others - and it is fairly easy to see that in light of the philosophy that one persons freedom ends where another's begins. It also is so that (while I have not investigated all constitutions... the ones I have agree that) the freedom of speech is also a freedom not to speak - i.e. nobody can be forced to speak. Although, again, there are cases where you can be subpoenaed to do so as a part of some due legal process.



Now, that last bit is important. Persons, and legal persons (companies) can not be mandated to speak anything by anyone else except through a legal due process. So a person cannot force a newspaper editor to print an article, force a publisher to publish a book, force an online platform to post. This is in fact protecting the freedom of speech, not breaking it.



Now, as for the UN - their rules apply only to signatories (governments) - and let's face it: They are guiding principles at best.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

    – John Bollinger
    10 hours ago



















2














Erwan answer is correct to the extent that it covers the liability of corporations under US law for the content they publish.



There is however a separate regulation, one where there's a distinction between a platform (where anyone can post anything legal, it can be demonetized or unsearchable, or not show up in recommended but still available) and a publisher (where the owner decides which content is ok for them to have there).



Namely, (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996)



It states, among other things, that




No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.




Being a platform means that You are not responsible for anything people put up and all you have to do is be reactive (someone flags content as say, copyright infrigement and you take it down).



Being a publisher means that You are responsible for what Your users upload (so you can be sued for someone uploading an episode of "Friends" to Your site).



Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... want to be platforms but also police content as a publisher would. This causes uploaders and consumers to be outraged at the censorship those companies because either You do not police legal content and are a platform or you police content and are a publisher.



The outrage is not as much about the fact that they're censoring the content, rather that they claimed to be free, independent media where anyone can post anything (legal) and "have a voice". That "promise" has been broken, or at least strained which causes the whole issue to be important at the moment.



Edit:
If content is illegal in say pakistan its okay if its not available in pakistan.



Edit2:
Many claim that selective censorship could be interpreted as a form of authoring the content on Your website (selecting content with a particular agenda can be interpreted as authoring the "message" Your platform expresses) thus making the site an "information content provider" (publisher) instead of platform thus making the site liable for any breaches of law connected to the uploaded content.



This is the argument I've seen most often used to claim Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... should either stop their censorship practices or be liable.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

    – JJJ
    yesterday






  • 1





    @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

    – Gensys LTD
    yesterday











  • This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

    – Baard Kopperud
    yesterday












  • I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

    – Alexander O'Mara
    yesterday











  • @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

    – Gensys LTD
    20 hours ago


















0














The UN thingy may be rather broad... trouble is you can't sue anyone anywhere based on it. The case of the US has been covered by Erwan (and is well known). For Europe, there's article 10 of the ECHR




  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.


  2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.




As you can see it largely mirrors the US idea that protection is against interference by public authorities, rather than private actors. And if you look at the notable cases listed there, they're all of the form X vs state-Y.



I'm also mentioning this because (as it's probably obvious) the ECHR wording is a lot more similar to the UN one (than the US 1st Amendment is), but still the European Convention added the important caveat about the interference being by public authority. So they "fixed it" [the UN wording that is], if you like.



The much newer Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in article 11, while dropping most of the caveats/verbiage, did keep this one about public authority:




Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.




By the way the (1950s) ECHR applies to some 47 countries, the (2000) Charter (entered force in 2009 actually) only to the EU.



Also, an UK charity has an interesting page on the meaning of "public authority" as it pertains to ECHR (the UK included ECHR into national law). Basically, Westminster left the term largely undefined as to apply to as many circumstances as possible... and some litigation ensued surrounding the meaning thereof. Basically the courts ruled that contractors for various governmental agencies don't count as a public authority. The UK charity is pretty critical of this, arguing that the government can basically "outsource" violations of human rights in this way. I don't know what the situation might be in other European countries in this respect.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Owen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39731%2ffreedom-of-speech-and-where-it-applies%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    42














    This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms.



    This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but it doesn't imply that any public or private organization has to offer their platform for them to do so. For example, if I write a political article it's up to me to find a support who agrees to publish it, I can't sue a newspaper because they refuse to publish it. Similarly, if I have my own website where people leave comments, I'm allowed to delete any comment I want since I'm the owner of the publication.



    The same applies to Google or Twitter: they provide a platform but they can decide what kind of content they accept or not (users agree to their rules when they validate the terms of use).



    This is why "freedom of speech only applies to the government", in the sense that only a government could prosecute somebody for expressing their opinions. In western democracies, governments are not allowed do that since freedom of speech is protected. By contrast, there are many countries where people can go to jail for expressing their opinions: this is what the absence of freedom of speech means.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 4





      This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 23





      @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

      – tim
      yesterday






    • 11





      @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

      – Erwan
      yesterday






    • 2





      Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday






    • 1





      The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

      – Hasse1987
      yesterday
















    42














    This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms.



    This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but it doesn't imply that any public or private organization has to offer their platform for them to do so. For example, if I write a political article it's up to me to find a support who agrees to publish it, I can't sue a newspaper because they refuse to publish it. Similarly, if I have my own website where people leave comments, I'm allowed to delete any comment I want since I'm the owner of the publication.



    The same applies to Google or Twitter: they provide a platform but they can decide what kind of content they accept or not (users agree to their rules when they validate the terms of use).



    This is why "freedom of speech only applies to the government", in the sense that only a government could prosecute somebody for expressing their opinions. In western democracies, governments are not allowed do that since freedom of speech is protected. By contrast, there are many countries where people can go to jail for expressing their opinions: this is what the absence of freedom of speech means.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 4





      This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 23





      @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

      – tim
      yesterday






    • 11





      @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

      – Erwan
      yesterday






    • 2





      Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday






    • 1





      The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

      – Hasse1987
      yesterday














    42












    42








    42







    This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms.



    This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but it doesn't imply that any public or private organization has to offer their platform for them to do so. For example, if I write a political article it's up to me to find a support who agrees to publish it, I can't sue a newspaper because they refuse to publish it. Similarly, if I have my own website where people leave comments, I'm allowed to delete any comment I want since I'm the owner of the publication.



    The same applies to Google or Twitter: they provide a platform but they can decide what kind of content they accept or not (users agree to their rules when they validate the terms of use).



    This is why "freedom of speech only applies to the government", in the sense that only a government could prosecute somebody for expressing their opinions. In western democracies, governments are not allowed do that since freedom of speech is protected. By contrast, there are many countries where people can go to jail for expressing their opinions: this is what the absence of freedom of speech means.






    share|improve this answer













    This is a common misconception. Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody can say whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It means essentially that people cannot be legally punished for expressing their opinions, except if said opinions infringe on other freedoms.



    This means that people are allowed to express their opinions, but it doesn't imply that any public or private organization has to offer their platform for them to do so. For example, if I write a political article it's up to me to find a support who agrees to publish it, I can't sue a newspaper because they refuse to publish it. Similarly, if I have my own website where people leave comments, I'm allowed to delete any comment I want since I'm the owner of the publication.



    The same applies to Google or Twitter: they provide a platform but they can decide what kind of content they accept or not (users agree to their rules when they validate the terms of use).



    This is why "freedom of speech only applies to the government", in the sense that only a government could prosecute somebody for expressing their opinions. In western democracies, governments are not allowed do that since freedom of speech is protected. By contrast, there are many countries where people can go to jail for expressing their opinions: this is what the absence of freedom of speech means.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    ErwanErwan

    2,145418




    2,145418







    • 4





      This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 23





      @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

      – tim
      yesterday






    • 11





      @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

      – Erwan
      yesterday






    • 2





      Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday






    • 1





      The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

      – Hasse1987
      yesterday













    • 4





      This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 23





      @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

      – tim
      yesterday






    • 11





      @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

      – Erwan
      yesterday






    • 2





      Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday






    • 1





      The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

      – Hasse1987
      yesterday








    4




    4





    This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

    – Owen
    yesterday





    This doesn't hold up to the definitions I have provided though, as article 19 states "any media regardless of frontiers", and wikipedia states "without fear of...censorship". Neither of these definitions restrict it to legal punishment, as legal punishment and censorship are not one in the same.

    – Owen
    yesterday




    23




    23





    @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

    – tim
    yesterday





    @Owen If you look at the context of article 19, "media" means something like "in writing", "orally", "in the form of art", etc, or in a more modern sense "on a webpage". It doesn't mean Twitter or Facebook or the New York Times; it would be pretty ridiculous if eg the NYT were required to publish everyone who wants to write something. And it's the same with eg Twitter. You are free to publish on your own website, but Twitter as a private company doesn't need to publish eg hate speech.

    – tim
    yesterday




    11




    11





    @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

    – Erwan
    yesterday





    @Owen in order to understand these definitions one needs to keep in mind the historical context in which they were established. For example "fear of censorshsip" doesn't refer to "I'm scared my comment will be deleted", it refers to "do I risk being tortured and imprisoned for life if I say this?". As Tim points out, your interpretation would imply that everybody is allowed to have their opinion published 24/7 on every tv, radio, internet and paper media. This is clearly self-contradictory.

    – Erwan
    yesterday




    2




    2





    Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

    – WGroleau
    yesterday





    Neither Wikipedia nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a law of any country.

    – WGroleau
    yesterday




    1




    1





    The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

    – Hasse1987
    yesterday






    The original question was ambiguous, whether referring to the general principle of free speech (second citation given in the question) or its enactment as a law (first citation). You should clarify this answer is referring specifically to its enactment as a law. E.g., Twitter, which the the poster mentions, espouses "freedom of expression" in its ToS, but that doesn't leave it subject to the first amendment.

    – Hasse1987
    yesterday












    16














    Consider where your line of thought will lead:



    • You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used?


    • Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship if you stop me from coming in and singing loudly and badly? Or would you simply be exercising your right to determine whom to invite and whom to throw out?


    • Imagine that for the next election, I put a campaign poster on your front lawn. Would it be censorship if you stop me from doing that? Or would you simply be exercising your right to use your front lawn as you see fit?


    These three examples were about the private living place of an individual citizen. But think through the same examples with a mom-and-pop grocery store.



    There are some reasons why it is not quite straightforward to extend this to Facebook, Google and the like:



    • Most countries have different laws for telecoms providers and news media. News media may e.g. be required to distinguish between editoral content and paid advertising, and they may be sued if what they print breaks laws. Telecoms providers are generally not liable for the content of communication which goes over their services, but they must not look into the content, either.
      The big internet companies seem to pick-and-choose if they want to be considered news or a telecommunications provider.

    • Either way, they have reached a size and market share that would justify anti-trust measures to break them up. Of course doing that would make the concept of a Facebook or Twitter impossible -- there could be no platform where "almost everybody" talks.





    share|improve this answer


















    • 4





      I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 8





      @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

      – o.m.
      yesterday







    • 3





      @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

      – user21878
      yesterday






    • 2





      I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

      – Obie 2.0
      yesterday







    • 4





      @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

      – o.m.
      yesterday















    16














    Consider where your line of thought will lead:



    • You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used?


    • Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship if you stop me from coming in and singing loudly and badly? Or would you simply be exercising your right to determine whom to invite and whom to throw out?


    • Imagine that for the next election, I put a campaign poster on your front lawn. Would it be censorship if you stop me from doing that? Or would you simply be exercising your right to use your front lawn as you see fit?


    These three examples were about the private living place of an individual citizen. But think through the same examples with a mom-and-pop grocery store.



    There are some reasons why it is not quite straightforward to extend this to Facebook, Google and the like:



    • Most countries have different laws for telecoms providers and news media. News media may e.g. be required to distinguish between editoral content and paid advertising, and they may be sued if what they print breaks laws. Telecoms providers are generally not liable for the content of communication which goes over their services, but they must not look into the content, either.
      The big internet companies seem to pick-and-choose if they want to be considered news or a telecommunications provider.

    • Either way, they have reached a size and market share that would justify anti-trust measures to break them up. Of course doing that would make the concept of a Facebook or Twitter impossible -- there could be no platform where "almost everybody" talks.





    share|improve this answer


















    • 4





      I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 8





      @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

      – o.m.
      yesterday







    • 3





      @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

      – user21878
      yesterday






    • 2





      I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

      – Obie 2.0
      yesterday







    • 4





      @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

      – o.m.
      yesterday













    16












    16








    16







    Consider where your line of thought will lead:



    • You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used?


    • Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship if you stop me from coming in and singing loudly and badly? Or would you simply be exercising your right to determine whom to invite and whom to throw out?


    • Imagine that for the next election, I put a campaign poster on your front lawn. Would it be censorship if you stop me from doing that? Or would you simply be exercising your right to use your front lawn as you see fit?


    These three examples were about the private living place of an individual citizen. But think through the same examples with a mom-and-pop grocery store.



    There are some reasons why it is not quite straightforward to extend this to Facebook, Google and the like:



    • Most countries have different laws for telecoms providers and news media. News media may e.g. be required to distinguish between editoral content and paid advertising, and they may be sued if what they print breaks laws. Telecoms providers are generally not liable for the content of communication which goes over their services, but they must not look into the content, either.
      The big internet companies seem to pick-and-choose if they want to be considered news or a telecommunications provider.

    • Either way, they have reached a size and market share that would justify anti-trust measures to break them up. Of course doing that would make the concept of a Facebook or Twitter impossible -- there could be no platform where "almost everybody" talks.





    share|improve this answer













    Consider where your line of thought will lead:



    • You own or have rented a house or apartment, I presume. Would it be censorship if you stop me from painting political slogans on your bedroom wall? Or would it simply be you exercising your right to determine how your bedroom is to be used?


    • Say you invite a couple of friends for a party. Would it be censorship if you stop me from coming in and singing loudly and badly? Or would you simply be exercising your right to determine whom to invite and whom to throw out?


    • Imagine that for the next election, I put a campaign poster on your front lawn. Would it be censorship if you stop me from doing that? Or would you simply be exercising your right to use your front lawn as you see fit?


    These three examples were about the private living place of an individual citizen. But think through the same examples with a mom-and-pop grocery store.



    There are some reasons why it is not quite straightforward to extend this to Facebook, Google and the like:



    • Most countries have different laws for telecoms providers and news media. News media may e.g. be required to distinguish between editoral content and paid advertising, and they may be sued if what they print breaks laws. Telecoms providers are generally not liable for the content of communication which goes over their services, but they must not look into the content, either.
      The big internet companies seem to pick-and-choose if they want to be considered news or a telecommunications provider.

    • Either way, they have reached a size and market share that would justify anti-trust measures to break them up. Of course doing that would make the concept of a Facebook or Twitter impossible -- there could be no platform where "almost everybody" talks.






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered yesterday









    o.m.o.m.

    10k11839




    10k11839







    • 4





      I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 8





      @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

      – o.m.
      yesterday







    • 3





      @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

      – user21878
      yesterday






    • 2





      I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

      – Obie 2.0
      yesterday







    • 4





      @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

      – o.m.
      yesterday












    • 4





      I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

      – Owen
      yesterday






    • 8





      @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

      – o.m.
      yesterday







    • 3





      @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

      – user21878
      yesterday






    • 2





      I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

      – Obie 2.0
      yesterday







    • 4





      @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

      – o.m.
      yesterday







    4




    4





    I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

    – Owen
    yesterday





    I don't really agree with two of these analogies. You're comparing online censorship to preventing someone from defacing material property. These two are completely and utterly different.

    – Owen
    yesterday




    8




    8





    @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

    – o.m.
    yesterday






    @Owen, an admin where I work had a poster on his office door. "There is no cloud. There are only other peoples' computers." And I'm old enough to remember how people on usenet were worried that the traffic on rec.arts.startrek was so high that university admins might drop it.

    – o.m.
    yesterday





    3




    3





    @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

    – user21878
    yesterday





    @Owen that may be part of your confusion I guess. They are NOT "completely and utterly different." They are (conceptually, regarding freedom of speech) the same, and the reasoning applies to both

    – user21878
    yesterday




    2




    2





    I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

    – Obie 2.0
    yesterday






    I think your answer doesn't necessarily cover the full scope of philosophical opinions. One could argue that the problem with freedom of speech isn't a binary one, but that different organizations have different degrees of power to restrict one a person is able to say, and that that's the real problem. A federal government obviously has the most power, but a local government still has some power (even though many people could move to another city) as does a telecommunications company (even though one could potentially switch providers or say things offline).

    – Obie 2.0
    yesterday





    4




    4





    @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

    – o.m.
    yesterday





    @Obie2.0, an employer firing someone for speech might constitute discrimination on political grounds, which may or may not be legal. The Catholic church reserves the right to fire employees if they marry, for instance, and that is widely accepted. Controversial political opinion might cause the loss of a security clearance, which is required for some jobs. And in "terminate at will" jurisdictions, the employer does not have to explain the reason.

    – o.m.
    yesterday











    9














    Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately.



    To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise violated by the government as a reprisal to any spoken opinion. It does not protect you in case your speech is considered as an attack (violence) upon others - and it is fairly easy to see that in light of the philosophy that one persons freedom ends where another's begins. It also is so that (while I have not investigated all constitutions... the ones I have agree that) the freedom of speech is also a freedom not to speak - i.e. nobody can be forced to speak. Although, again, there are cases where you can be subpoenaed to do so as a part of some due legal process.



    Now, that last bit is important. Persons, and legal persons (companies) can not be mandated to speak anything by anyone else except through a legal due process. So a person cannot force a newspaper editor to print an article, force a publisher to publish a book, force an online platform to post. This is in fact protecting the freedom of speech, not breaking it.



    Now, as for the UN - their rules apply only to signatories (governments) - and let's face it: They are guiding principles at best.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

      – John Bollinger
      10 hours ago
















    9














    Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately.



    To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise violated by the government as a reprisal to any spoken opinion. It does not protect you in case your speech is considered as an attack (violence) upon others - and it is fairly easy to see that in light of the philosophy that one persons freedom ends where another's begins. It also is so that (while I have not investigated all constitutions... the ones I have agree that) the freedom of speech is also a freedom not to speak - i.e. nobody can be forced to speak. Although, again, there are cases where you can be subpoenaed to do so as a part of some due legal process.



    Now, that last bit is important. Persons, and legal persons (companies) can not be mandated to speak anything by anyone else except through a legal due process. So a person cannot force a newspaper editor to print an article, force a publisher to publish a book, force an online platform to post. This is in fact protecting the freedom of speech, not breaking it.



    Now, as for the UN - their rules apply only to signatories (governments) - and let's face it: They are guiding principles at best.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

      – John Bollinger
      10 hours ago














    9












    9








    9







    Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately.



    To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise violated by the government as a reprisal to any spoken opinion. It does not protect you in case your speech is considered as an attack (violence) upon others - and it is fairly easy to see that in light of the philosophy that one persons freedom ends where another's begins. It also is so that (while I have not investigated all constitutions... the ones I have agree that) the freedom of speech is also a freedom not to speak - i.e. nobody can be forced to speak. Although, again, there are cases where you can be subpoenaed to do so as a part of some due legal process.



    Now, that last bit is important. Persons, and legal persons (companies) can not be mandated to speak anything by anyone else except through a legal due process. So a person cannot force a newspaper editor to print an article, force a publisher to publish a book, force an online platform to post. This is in fact protecting the freedom of speech, not breaking it.



    Now, as for the UN - their rules apply only to signatories (governments) - and let's face it: They are guiding principles at best.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.










    Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any person to express themselves. It is one of the human rights defined by the UN charter, and it is a right expressed in most democratic constitutions, separately.



    To take the latter first - governments that guarantee freedom of speech defines it as a right to not get arrested, fined, censored or otherwise violated by the government as a reprisal to any spoken opinion. It does not protect you in case your speech is considered as an attack (violence) upon others - and it is fairly easy to see that in light of the philosophy that one persons freedom ends where another's begins. It also is so that (while I have not investigated all constitutions... the ones I have agree that) the freedom of speech is also a freedom not to speak - i.e. nobody can be forced to speak. Although, again, there are cases where you can be subpoenaed to do so as a part of some due legal process.



    Now, that last bit is important. Persons, and legal persons (companies) can not be mandated to speak anything by anyone else except through a legal due process. So a person cannot force a newspaper editor to print an article, force a publisher to publish a book, force an online platform to post. This is in fact protecting the freedom of speech, not breaking it.



    Now, as for the UN - their rules apply only to signatories (governments) - and let's face it: They are guiding principles at best.







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered yesterday









    Stian YttervikStian Yttervik

    1914




    1914




    New contributor




    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Stian Yttervik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

      – John Bollinger
      10 hours ago


















    • Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

      – John Bollinger
      10 hours ago

















    Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

    – John Bollinger
    10 hours ago






    Plus one for "guiding principles at best". No country that recognizes a right to free speech recognizes it as an absolute right. All that I know of limit it to protection from government reprisal based on the content of speech, but moreover, many exclude protection for speech that they judge conflicts with public decency / public order / rightthink.

    – John Bollinger
    10 hours ago












    2














    Erwan answer is correct to the extent that it covers the liability of corporations under US law for the content they publish.



    There is however a separate regulation, one where there's a distinction between a platform (where anyone can post anything legal, it can be demonetized or unsearchable, or not show up in recommended but still available) and a publisher (where the owner decides which content is ok for them to have there).



    Namely, (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996)



    It states, among other things, that




    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.




    Being a platform means that You are not responsible for anything people put up and all you have to do is be reactive (someone flags content as say, copyright infrigement and you take it down).



    Being a publisher means that You are responsible for what Your users upload (so you can be sued for someone uploading an episode of "Friends" to Your site).



    Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... want to be platforms but also police content as a publisher would. This causes uploaders and consumers to be outraged at the censorship those companies because either You do not police legal content and are a platform or you police content and are a publisher.



    The outrage is not as much about the fact that they're censoring the content, rather that they claimed to be free, independent media where anyone can post anything (legal) and "have a voice". That "promise" has been broken, or at least strained which causes the whole issue to be important at the moment.



    Edit:
    If content is illegal in say pakistan its okay if its not available in pakistan.



    Edit2:
    Many claim that selective censorship could be interpreted as a form of authoring the content on Your website (selecting content with a particular agenda can be interpreted as authoring the "message" Your platform expresses) thus making the site an "information content provider" (publisher) instead of platform thus making the site liable for any breaches of law connected to the uploaded content.



    This is the argument I've seen most often used to claim Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... should either stop their censorship practices or be liable.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

      – JJJ
      yesterday






    • 1





      @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

      – Gensys LTD
      yesterday











    • This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

      – Baard Kopperud
      yesterday












    • I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

      – Alexander O'Mara
      yesterday











    • @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

      – Gensys LTD
      20 hours ago















    2














    Erwan answer is correct to the extent that it covers the liability of corporations under US law for the content they publish.



    There is however a separate regulation, one where there's a distinction between a platform (where anyone can post anything legal, it can be demonetized or unsearchable, or not show up in recommended but still available) and a publisher (where the owner decides which content is ok for them to have there).



    Namely, (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996)



    It states, among other things, that




    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.




    Being a platform means that You are not responsible for anything people put up and all you have to do is be reactive (someone flags content as say, copyright infrigement and you take it down).



    Being a publisher means that You are responsible for what Your users upload (so you can be sued for someone uploading an episode of "Friends" to Your site).



    Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... want to be platforms but also police content as a publisher would. This causes uploaders and consumers to be outraged at the censorship those companies because either You do not police legal content and are a platform or you police content and are a publisher.



    The outrage is not as much about the fact that they're censoring the content, rather that they claimed to be free, independent media where anyone can post anything (legal) and "have a voice". That "promise" has been broken, or at least strained which causes the whole issue to be important at the moment.



    Edit:
    If content is illegal in say pakistan its okay if its not available in pakistan.



    Edit2:
    Many claim that selective censorship could be interpreted as a form of authoring the content on Your website (selecting content with a particular agenda can be interpreted as authoring the "message" Your platform expresses) thus making the site an "information content provider" (publisher) instead of platform thus making the site liable for any breaches of law connected to the uploaded content.



    This is the argument I've seen most often used to claim Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... should either stop their censorship practices or be liable.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















    • Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

      – JJJ
      yesterday






    • 1





      @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

      – Gensys LTD
      yesterday











    • This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

      – Baard Kopperud
      yesterday












    • I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

      – Alexander O'Mara
      yesterday











    • @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

      – Gensys LTD
      20 hours ago













    2












    2








    2







    Erwan answer is correct to the extent that it covers the liability of corporations under US law for the content they publish.



    There is however a separate regulation, one where there's a distinction between a platform (where anyone can post anything legal, it can be demonetized or unsearchable, or not show up in recommended but still available) and a publisher (where the owner decides which content is ok for them to have there).



    Namely, (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996)



    It states, among other things, that




    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.




    Being a platform means that You are not responsible for anything people put up and all you have to do is be reactive (someone flags content as say, copyright infrigement and you take it down).



    Being a publisher means that You are responsible for what Your users upload (so you can be sued for someone uploading an episode of "Friends" to Your site).



    Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... want to be platforms but also police content as a publisher would. This causes uploaders and consumers to be outraged at the censorship those companies because either You do not police legal content and are a platform or you police content and are a publisher.



    The outrage is not as much about the fact that they're censoring the content, rather that they claimed to be free, independent media where anyone can post anything (legal) and "have a voice". That "promise" has been broken, or at least strained which causes the whole issue to be important at the moment.



    Edit:
    If content is illegal in say pakistan its okay if its not available in pakistan.



    Edit2:
    Many claim that selective censorship could be interpreted as a form of authoring the content on Your website (selecting content with a particular agenda can be interpreted as authoring the "message" Your platform expresses) thus making the site an "information content provider" (publisher) instead of platform thus making the site liable for any breaches of law connected to the uploaded content.



    This is the argument I've seen most often used to claim Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... should either stop their censorship practices or be liable.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.










    Erwan answer is correct to the extent that it covers the liability of corporations under US law for the content they publish.



    There is however a separate regulation, one where there's a distinction between a platform (where anyone can post anything legal, it can be demonetized or unsearchable, or not show up in recommended but still available) and a publisher (where the owner decides which content is ok for them to have there).



    Namely, (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996)



    It states, among other things, that




    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.




    Being a platform means that You are not responsible for anything people put up and all you have to do is be reactive (someone flags content as say, copyright infrigement and you take it down).



    Being a publisher means that You are responsible for what Your users upload (so you can be sued for someone uploading an episode of "Friends" to Your site).



    Youtube, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc... want to be platforms but also police content as a publisher would. This causes uploaders and consumers to be outraged at the censorship those companies because either You do not police legal content and are a platform or you police content and are a publisher.



    The outrage is not as much about the fact that they're censoring the content, rather that they claimed to be free, independent media where anyone can post anything (legal) and "have a voice". That "promise" has been broken, or at least strained which causes the whole issue to be important at the moment.



    Edit:
    If content is illegal in say pakistan its okay if its not available in pakistan.



    Edit2:
    Many claim that selective censorship could be interpreted as a form of authoring the content on Your website (selecting content with a particular agenda can be interpreted as authoring the "message" Your platform expresses) thus making the site an "information content provider" (publisher) instead of platform thus making the site liable for any breaches of law connected to the uploaded content.



    This is the argument I've seen most often used to claim Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... should either stop their censorship practices or be liable.







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 19 hours ago





















    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered yesterday









    Gensys LTDGensys LTD

    1293




    1293




    New contributor




    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Gensys LTD is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.












    • Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

      – JJJ
      yesterday






    • 1





      @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

      – Gensys LTD
      yesterday











    • This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

      – Baard Kopperud
      yesterday












    • I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

      – Alexander O'Mara
      yesterday











    • @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

      – Gensys LTD
      20 hours ago

















    • Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

      – JJJ
      yesterday






    • 1





      @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

      – Gensys LTD
      yesterday











    • This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

      – Baard Kopperud
      yesterday












    • I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

      – Alexander O'Mara
      yesterday











    • @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

      – Gensys LTD
      20 hours ago
















    Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

    – JJJ
    yesterday





    Welcome to Politics, I have heard about this before, but your answer would be much better if you can link to the law that defines such 'platforms'.

    – JJJ
    yesterday




    1




    1





    @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

    – Gensys LTD
    yesterday





    @JJJ I updated the answer to include that information, good idea.

    – Gensys LTD
    yesterday













    This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

    – Baard Kopperud
    yesterday






    This would probably take it into the realm of contract-law... and as long as it's a free service and the two parties (you and the provider) haven't actually signed anything nor any money has changed hands, it would be difficult to make a such a loose promise as "here everybody have a voice" to stick. Further more, if flagging lets the platform remove content - who's to say that you're post wasn't flagged for something by another user. Finally "legal content"... Is that just federal - or state and local too? And what if the owners of the platform add their own rules?

    – Baard Kopperud
    yesterday














    I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

    – Alexander O'Mara
    yesterday





    I don't see any reason why a platform would not be able to decide for itself how long to host any particular content, or under what criteria it may be removed.

    – Alexander O'Mara
    yesterday













    @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

    – Gensys LTD
    20 hours ago





    @BaardKopperud i am writing here about the outrage and public opinion being negative as well as by-law distinction of platforms vs publishers. Twitter promised to be the place where everybody has a voice as it was their initial aim (or at least marketing) the whole topic ic very complex so i just wanted to highlight the existence of differentiation between different company types.

    – Gensys LTD
    20 hours ago











    0














    The UN thingy may be rather broad... trouble is you can't sue anyone anywhere based on it. The case of the US has been covered by Erwan (and is well known). For Europe, there's article 10 of the ECHR




    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.


    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.




    As you can see it largely mirrors the US idea that protection is against interference by public authorities, rather than private actors. And if you look at the notable cases listed there, they're all of the form X vs state-Y.



    I'm also mentioning this because (as it's probably obvious) the ECHR wording is a lot more similar to the UN one (than the US 1st Amendment is), but still the European Convention added the important caveat about the interference being by public authority. So they "fixed it" [the UN wording that is], if you like.



    The much newer Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in article 11, while dropping most of the caveats/verbiage, did keep this one about public authority:




    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
    The freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.




    By the way the (1950s) ECHR applies to some 47 countries, the (2000) Charter (entered force in 2009 actually) only to the EU.



    Also, an UK charity has an interesting page on the meaning of "public authority" as it pertains to ECHR (the UK included ECHR into national law). Basically, Westminster left the term largely undefined as to apply to as many circumstances as possible... and some litigation ensued surrounding the meaning thereof. Basically the courts ruled that contractors for various governmental agencies don't count as a public authority. The UK charity is pretty critical of this, arguing that the government can basically "outsource" violations of human rights in this way. I don't know what the situation might be in other European countries in this respect.






    share|improve this answer





























      0














      The UN thingy may be rather broad... trouble is you can't sue anyone anywhere based on it. The case of the US has been covered by Erwan (and is well known). For Europe, there's article 10 of the ECHR




      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.


      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.




      As you can see it largely mirrors the US idea that protection is against interference by public authorities, rather than private actors. And if you look at the notable cases listed there, they're all of the form X vs state-Y.



      I'm also mentioning this because (as it's probably obvious) the ECHR wording is a lot more similar to the UN one (than the US 1st Amendment is), but still the European Convention added the important caveat about the interference being by public authority. So they "fixed it" [the UN wording that is], if you like.



      The much newer Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in article 11, while dropping most of the caveats/verbiage, did keep this one about public authority:




      Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
      The freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.




      By the way the (1950s) ECHR applies to some 47 countries, the (2000) Charter (entered force in 2009 actually) only to the EU.



      Also, an UK charity has an interesting page on the meaning of "public authority" as it pertains to ECHR (the UK included ECHR into national law). Basically, Westminster left the term largely undefined as to apply to as many circumstances as possible... and some litigation ensued surrounding the meaning thereof. Basically the courts ruled that contractors for various governmental agencies don't count as a public authority. The UK charity is pretty critical of this, arguing that the government can basically "outsource" violations of human rights in this way. I don't know what the situation might be in other European countries in this respect.






      share|improve this answer



























        0












        0








        0







        The UN thingy may be rather broad... trouble is you can't sue anyone anywhere based on it. The case of the US has been covered by Erwan (and is well known). For Europe, there's article 10 of the ECHR




        1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.


        2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.




        As you can see it largely mirrors the US idea that protection is against interference by public authorities, rather than private actors. And if you look at the notable cases listed there, they're all of the form X vs state-Y.



        I'm also mentioning this because (as it's probably obvious) the ECHR wording is a lot more similar to the UN one (than the US 1st Amendment is), but still the European Convention added the important caveat about the interference being by public authority. So they "fixed it" [the UN wording that is], if you like.



        The much newer Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in article 11, while dropping most of the caveats/verbiage, did keep this one about public authority:




        Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
        The freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.




        By the way the (1950s) ECHR applies to some 47 countries, the (2000) Charter (entered force in 2009 actually) only to the EU.



        Also, an UK charity has an interesting page on the meaning of "public authority" as it pertains to ECHR (the UK included ECHR into national law). Basically, Westminster left the term largely undefined as to apply to as many circumstances as possible... and some litigation ensued surrounding the meaning thereof. Basically the courts ruled that contractors for various governmental agencies don't count as a public authority. The UK charity is pretty critical of this, arguing that the government can basically "outsource" violations of human rights in this way. I don't know what the situation might be in other European countries in this respect.






        share|improve this answer















        The UN thingy may be rather broad... trouble is you can't sue anyone anywhere based on it. The case of the US has been covered by Erwan (and is well known). For Europe, there's article 10 of the ECHR




        1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.


        2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.




        As you can see it largely mirrors the US idea that protection is against interference by public authorities, rather than private actors. And if you look at the notable cases listed there, they're all of the form X vs state-Y.



        I'm also mentioning this because (as it's probably obvious) the ECHR wording is a lot more similar to the UN one (than the US 1st Amendment is), but still the European Convention added the important caveat about the interference being by public authority. So they "fixed it" [the UN wording that is], if you like.



        The much newer Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in article 11, while dropping most of the caveats/verbiage, did keep this one about public authority:




        Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
        The freedom and pluralism of media shall be respected.




        By the way the (1950s) ECHR applies to some 47 countries, the (2000) Charter (entered force in 2009 actually) only to the EU.



        Also, an UK charity has an interesting page on the meaning of "public authority" as it pertains to ECHR (the UK included ECHR into national law). Basically, Westminster left the term largely undefined as to apply to as many circumstances as possible... and some litigation ensued surrounding the meaning thereof. Basically the courts ruled that contractors for various governmental agencies don't count as a public authority. The UK charity is pretty critical of this, arguing that the government can basically "outsource" violations of human rights in this way. I don't know what the situation might be in other European countries in this respect.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 19 hours ago

























        answered 21 hours ago









        FizzFizz

        11.6k12874




        11.6k12874




















            Owen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Owen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Owen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Owen is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39731%2ffreedom-of-speech-and-where-it-applies%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

            三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP