You lose control of your writings once you hand them over to a 3d party like Facebook or Google... and not just because the government can get to it. What if Facebook decided to delete everything The Women found misogynist? What if Google decided to delete all the blogs that it deemed hurtful to women... or to the Democratic Party?
***
Here's that discussion I had back in 2011 with Bob Wright about whether "free speech" means anything outside of the individual's interaction with government.
Posts
33 comments:
It means back up your blog so you can resurrect it on another site.
Too late.
From the article:
I have a smidgeon of sympathy for the US-based Facebook, nailed (emphasis mine) to a US legal perspective on free speech whereby only material that shows direct harm can be prosecuted.
That goddamn 1st Amendment! What a load of codswallop it all is! That "free speech" stuff is really all about preserving heteronormativity, isn't it?
/sarc
I'd feel a whole lot better about giving up my 2nd Amendment rights if the same people who want to dilute my 2nd amendment rights didn't so often seem to not give a shit about my 1st Amendment rights, either.
I'm all for free speech as long as nobody's offended.
"It means back up your blog so you can resurrect it on another site."
It's too big to get out. At least not with all the comments.
Not really cruel neutrality. In the article there is also the quote
"But that’s only half the story. Facebook has a long track record of somewhat heavy-handedly imposing heteronormative values and attitudes. Breastfeeding groups have been taken down, as have all manner of pages celebrating the female body in art and more generally, while soft porn remains. As does some hate speech, magically disappearing only when a journalist mentions it to their press office."
I can't tell however which way Professor Althouse isn't being neutral. Is it her being against certain kinds of feminists? or is she just pro free speech and would have used a quote like this if she were trying to convince a different audience that there is a problem?
As I read it, the First Amendment was directly about the people's relationship to government.
Free speech among individuals is only as free as someone's inclination toward a punch in the nose.
As it were.
YMMV
I must have missed something. When was it I was forced to read something offensive on face book? Other than my Democrat friends posting silly jokes about the Tea Party?
It's not about tolerance - its about stamping out *anything* that they feel is remotely offensive. Taking that no holds barred to religion, food, lifestyles - anything really - would leave absolutely no room for any stance even remotely controversial.
It's too big to get out. At least not with all the comments.
Can't be done at all, or deemed too spendy?
There is a silver lining if you think about it...
If Facebook and Google take down all messages women considered "offensive", it would lessened the NSA dragnet saving the taxpayers tons of money... win win.
Don't mention it... I'm just doing my part ;)
(Sorry, in the original I had the quotation marks on the wrong word... don't delete)
Did the author of this drivel even wonder if there are any posts on Facebook directed at men that would be considered nasty and vile?
Silly me! I must have missed out on the serious debate about whether it is appropriate to break a woman’s nose if she fails to make a sandwich right, first time of asking
Uh, how about you go on to Facebook looking for something other than outrage, perhaps?
It's pretty simple, really. The government should stay out of the speech department entirely. The Frist Amendment is pretty damn clear. Property owners can do what they want with regard to speech, because this concerns respect for the property owner. They have rights too with respect to their private property. Whether you're a host at a dinner party in your home or a blogger on your blog, you are within your rights to demand respect. This includes respect for your rules regarding speech, no matter how silly. Therefore, you may define the limits of speech. It's sometimes difficult for a guest, but you are always free to leave.
With universities, PC is a difficult issue, but my belief is that they are quasi-public institutions, so they should be very open to free speech. Also, it's part of their educational mandate. It's part of the process of seeking truth.
Of course, I am free to say whatever the hell I want anywhere anytime.
It's too big to get out.
What Althouse saying is that she is staying with Google to work it from the inside.
She is going bring down Google's wall of ignorance and intolerance.
With Althouse United, Will Never be Divided!
Take me to the river, drop me in the water, water.
I'm betting she doesn't have equal passion for the rampant misandry we, and our kids, see every single day in television advertising.
At least not with all the comments.
Who needs comments when we have Inga... wait.
We don't want that.
No joke.
Lem don't you know that you are not supposed to mention the Devil's name because when you do he will show up?
That's why you should never have said "Bobby Valentine" in your sleep.
I've never been on Facebook so perhaps my comments are uninformed, but I don't see what the First Amendment has to do with Facebook. It's just a matter of the contract between Facebook and its customers. If Facebook says that only comments approved by Womyn (tm) can be posted, well, that's their prerogative, and they'll pay for it when their customers leave for alternative platforms. At least that's how I see it.
Ann Althouse said...
It's too big to get out. At least not with all the comments.
The NSA would disagree.
Hey, maybe if blogger deletes it, you could get the NSA to restore it for you.
Precious little snowflake gets her feelings hurt easily. Wants older brother to listen to her and make the bad people shut up and go away.
So tired of this meme. Grow up, lady. Who's making you sign in to facebook?
So free speech is an 18th-century idea, eh? Well, have I got news for her: censorship is vastly older than 18th-century.
Hey, maybe if blogger deletes it, you could get the NSA to restore it for you.
With the NSA you have a friend for life.
Come with us, under the umbrella.
"It's too big to get out. At least not with all the comments."
Con Law students - copy and paste - problem solved.
Blogger edutcher said...
As I read it, the First Amendment was directly about the people's relationship to government.
Every Amendment, every word, every thought, put to pen, was "about" the relationship between government and sovereign citizen. "Between" the operative word.
Something smells fishy here.
Like Amanda Marcotte's dildo.
Professional victims. Well-fed, too.
Why the damnable hell do you
A) read Pandagon in the first place?
B) subject us to it?
Ugh.
(Plus what Hegelian said.
I refuse to endure a lecture on free speech from people who want to ban every damned thing they dislike - and will cry bloody murder when they try to "... stand upright in the winds that would blow then?".)
Also, to analyse what Leo quoted: Facebook has a long track record of somewhat heavy-handedly imposing heteronormative values and attitudes. Breastfeeding groups have been taken down, as have all manner of pages celebrating the female body in art and more generally, while soft porn remains
What does not showing breastfeeding pictures have to do with "heteronormativ[ity]"? It's not like breastfeeding is homosexual.
Likewise, "celebrating the female body in art and more generally" is more likely heteronormative than not.
She's confusing "prudish" and "heteronormative" - revealing that she's got no idea what the god-damn words she uses mean.
Big surprise, I know.
Post a Comment