• @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Right, I was wondering if there might be a distinct term so that it might be clearer that a private entity’s action is not a violation of rights in the sense that a government action might be. Thinking mainly of why xkcd #1357 tends to come up a lot

    • @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble
      link
      English
      154 months ago

      I think the key is to make sure you differentiate it from freedom of speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the government censoring you, while censorship isn’t exclusive to the government.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      84 months ago

      Idiots on the internet are going to idiot - just bop them on the head as soon as they say “Facebook is infringing on muh first ammendment!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You may find this post by the eminent First Amendment lawyer Ken White (aka PopeHat on social media) a useful read: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry

      As a summary, he distinguishes the different facets of the free speech debate into three categories: free speech rights (FSR), free speech culture (FSC), and speech decency (SD). FSRs are those protected in law and vary depending on country and historical precedences. Whereas FSC manifests itself in how private actors conduct themselves, sometimes very inviting of opposing voices and other times not so much. Finally, SD is closer to social morals, and the application of speech to fight other speech.

      If we accept Mr PopeHat’s assessment, then the term you’re looking for may lay somewhere between FSC and SD, since private entities will have their – sometimes great/justified/meh/awful – reasons for declining to platform certain types of speech.

      I suppose it may be plausible to describe a private censor as “free speech unprincipled” or “free speech uncultured” if they act within the law but not within the accepted FSC.

    • @RightHandOfIkaros
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Depending on where something like this (cancelling a person, basically telling them they’re a social outcast as indicated in the linked comic, etc) happens, it wouldn’t necessarily violate constitutional rights, but it may qualify as emotional abuse and some places consider emotional abuse a crime equal to crimes like domestic abuse. It could also be fought in civil court where such a suit would not be considered criminal, which would likely be charged as “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” It could be argued that the person is being treated too harshly or something, but that would be on a case by case basis.

      Just because a constitutional right is not being violated doesn’t mean something is right or okay to do, or that you are somehow safe from legal repercussions if the person decides to sue over it. Of course, the same legal action is also available to a person that feels offended/hurt/distressed/etc by something someone else says. You can sue for anything, afterall.

      Businesses, just like people, also have the right to trespass people off of their private property, and I would imagine that forums and message boards of companies would be legally considered like such private property. So if someone is violating the rules, maybe they could try to sue for emotional distress but that case would be near impossible to win. The business/forum owner has the right to tell anyone they want to leave for any reason they want. Thats how it is.