Althouse: "We uphold the ideal of free speech on reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to, but because..."

September 8, 2014

"We uphold the ideal of free speech on reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to, but because..."

"... we believe that you - the user - has the right to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, and that it is your responsibility to do so. When you know something is right, you should choose to do it. But as much as possible, we will not force you to do it. You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create and what kind of rules you will enforce. We will try not to interfere - not because we don’t care, but because we care that you make your choices between right and wrong. Virtuous behavior is only virtuous if it is not arrived at by compulsion. This is a central idea of the community we are trying to create."

So writes Reddit CEO Yishan Wong in a blog post titled "Every Man Is Responsible For His Own Soul," a propos of the naked-celebrity-photos-leak incident. Via the NYT, "Reddit and 4chan Begin to Button Up."

The application of free-speech principles outside of the context of government restrictions has been a long-term interest of mine on this blog. Here's that long email debate I had with Bob Wright on the subject, which followed on a voluble Bloggingheads debate we had, which I highlight in a post called "When did the left turn against free speech?" Watch Bob start yelling at me — "Ann, come on, you're a constitutional law authority..." — 20 seconds into this clip:

28 comments:

Paco Wové said...: "Task Queue failed at step 5: Playlist could not be loaded due to crossdomain policy restrictions."

Not just Reddit and 4chan, then.; 9/8/14, 1:52 PM
eddie willers said...: Ann, I see you are asking the same question that has been rolling around my brain for so long:

"When did the left turn against free speech?"

It seems that they have decided that only the very letter of the law (ie. first amendment prohibition against government interfering with political speech) counts rather than what the average person considers (and feels) as 'censorship'.

It seems that only here are they originalists.

PS...you kicked his ass.; 9/8/14, 2:03 PM
traditionalguy said...: I have not watched you try to talk with Wright for years, but that reminded me of wondering then why you put up with him like you did. The battle of ideas I suppose.; 9/8/14, 2:13 PM
damikesc said...: Yet reddit will silence the shit out of discussions if they do not like it.

Bring up the name Zoe Quinn there in anything but a positive manner and see what happens.; 9/8/14, 2:14 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Educated lefties completely know that law isn't the beginning and end of the values and principles that guide us in the choices we make in life. They pretend they don't know when they feel inclined to restrict other people.

It's not illegal, so I can do it.

Ethics, morality, philosophy, religion... there is so much more than merely law.

Perhaps because they believe that government should do so much, they lose sight of the rules and principles and standards that bind us that are not law. They have the legal right to ignore all those things, but I say — and this is not law — that's bad character.; 9/8/14, 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: The Redditors for each subreddit have different ideas about what is and isn't acceptable, and the readers are fiercely intolerant at times. That's what real free speech looks like: if your speech is unpopular you may have to go elsewhere.

This system allows for a lot of airing of society's dirty laundry that would otherwise be hushed up. If you're widely read it's not going to hurt you, but may open your mind a little.; 9/8/14, 2:40 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Althouse shut down the comments section here because things got especially ugly.

Althouse?

You believe in limits, I assume? That is, those beyond the legal ones such as defamation, copyright infringement, et cetera.; 9/8/14, 3:40 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: That's not a "gotcha question" although it does sound like one.

How do you reconcile it with your full throated support of free speech?; 9/8/14, 3:42 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Ann, c'mon" isn't nearly as powerful as "Oh, c'mon!"

Nobody can withstand that withering leftist riposte.; 9/8/14, 3:42 PM
mesquito said...: liberals have been hostile to free expression at least since I entered Enormous State University in 1984.; 9/8/14, 5:01 PM
Quaestor said...: When did the left turn against free speech?

If asked for a date I'd say 30 March 1794.

The left has never been in favor of free speech. They've made noises about free speech when they were totally marginalized in the 1950s, but whenever they can they make it abundantly clear that free speech means only politically correct speech as judged by the left. All other speech must be banned, shouted down, silenced.

I really wanted to listen to the whole bloggingheads, but Wright's shrill tone, eye rolling, and fidgeting was just intolerable. I'll read his transcript, but I won't hear his voice if I have a choice.; 9/8/14, 5:18 PM
Quaestor said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/8/14, 5:18 PM
Quaestor said...: It's not illegal, so I can do it.

Which contrasts sharply with the operating principle of all socialist regimes:

If it's not specifically permitted, it's forbidden.; 9/8/14, 5:22 PM
Quaestor said...: You believe in limits, I assume? That is, those beyond the legal ones such as defamation, copyright infringement, et cetera.

I supposed it's useless to point out that this blog is Althouse's turf, it's her property, so to speak. We are all here by sufferance and not by any inalienable right. Thus the analogy is false.

Next?; 9/8/14, 5:27 PM
Rusty said...: He didn't give a counter argument. He gave reasons why the other side should not be allowed to speak.; 9/8/14, 5:43 PM
David said...: Whatever happened to Bob? His star seems to have set.; 9/8/14, 6:14 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/8/14, 7:42 PM
n.n said...: Choosing between right and wrong, good and evil, function and dysfunction, accepting responsibility for personal actions, classifying behaviors for rejection, tolerance, and normalization, are moral arguments. It is, they are, a prerequisite for liberty and an open society.; 9/8/14, 7:44 PM
Writ Small said...: Let's flip the hypothetical. Suppose a conservative said something like "Why on Earth does Rev. Al Sharpton have his own show on MSNBC?" Suppose that author listed all the controversial things Sharpton has been involved with over the years and expressed surprise MSNBC would give such a man a platform. Would all those cheering Althouse in this thread say that was evidence that the author (or the "Right") had turned against free speech?; 9/8/14, 8:55 PM
rcocean said...: I think Bob Wright has learned that taking on Conservatives, or even free thinkers like Althouse on political issues is a no win for him.

First, he always comes off as angry and intolerant. Second, his BHTV liberals don't appreciate his defense of liberal positions, instead they're annoyed Bob has them on BHTV at all.; 9/8/14, 9:04 PM
Richard Dolan said...: Perhaps the term 'free speech' invites the legalisms that BW interjected. A different phrase, less loaded with First Amendment associations, might do better -- free and open discussion forum, or uncensored gove-and-take, for example. Lefties today like to talk about 'privileged narratives.' So another formulation would be 'communication without any privileged narrative.' I know, I know, it's really clunky, but in some academic circles, that's a virtue.; 9/8/14, 9:19 PM
Lyle Smith said...: Bob is a well educated, well intentioned but dangerous idiot.; 9/8/14, 10:16 PM
Limited Blogger said...: @Ann Althouse said, "Educated lefties completely know that law isn't the beginning and end of the values and principles that guide us in the choices we make in life. They pretend they don't know when they feel inclined to restrict other people."

Absolutely right, except I wouldn't narrow the spectrum of these purported vanguards of free speech to "educated" lefties -- though the educated lefties are often the most effective and thus the most dangerous.

The paradigm shift I'm seeing at my old law school is that the elite believe they, and they alone, are charged with, and the only ones capable of, ferreting out "hate speech" and stomping it six feet under the ground so that no one can or will ever hear it.

And since "hate speech," so goes their argument, has ZERO value under the 1st Amendment, it therefore deserves ZERO 1st Amendment protections. And THEY (the leftists) alone get to decide what is hate speech. But don't worry, they tell us. Much like obscenity, they'll know it when they hear it.

This is actually being argued repeatedly, quite forcefully, and oftentimes persuasively. When the Dersh came to a symposium of sorts in our town, and the moderator -- our associate/assistant(?) provost (for the entire university) -- proposed such a "test" he looked about to fall out of his chair.

But make no mistake, even with the Dersh on the side of free speech: this "hate speech" argument is out there and it's getting louder and prouder. It's getting traction, in other words.

The left wants, in its sole discretion, the ability to define political speech (or any speech they disagree with, e.g., speech that is "non-inclusive" or "intolerant" or "racist" or fill in the ________-ist) as hate speech. And at the very least, they argue, they ought to have the power to ban it on college campuses.

Have leftists forgotten the concept of a pendulum? That's a serious question. A pendulum, by definition, swings. I'm no leftist, by any means, but their logic and sense of history grow dimmer by the day.; 9/8/14, 11:22 PM
Brando said...: I don't know, the Left seemed pretty much in tune with the idea of free speech as a general value (rather than simply the legal protection against government restriction) when it was country music fans boycotting the Dixie Chicks. Respect for that general value didn't extend to the owner of Chick-fil-A though. It's almost as though their opinion on free speech only extends to speech to which they are sympathetic.

I'm sure they'll come around again when someone on the Left gets boycotted by a right-leaning majority. Then we'll be back to the principles of free speech and dissent being the highest value.; 9/9/14, 7:12 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: This isn't difficult to figure out.

If the Left could counter the Right with cogent arguments, they would.

But they can't, so they suppress and repress.

It's either that, or admit they are wrong about many many things.

And it wouldn't be so hard to admit being wrong, if, from the start, a desire to know the truth about things, was the goal.

It wasn't, so we predictably see the "shut them down!" tactic.

Sad, really. And doomed to failure.; 9/9/14, 7:50 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/9/14, 8:09 AM
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...: Shorter Limited Blogger:

Fascism is a phenomenon of the Left.

Always has been. Always will be.; 9/9/14, 8:11 AM
ken in tx said...: reddit is one of the most restrictive sites that I visit. None of my attempted posts have ever been accepted--violated some obscure rule. I don't even try anymore. Many of my comments have been rejected as well. Their claiming to be for free speech is a joke.; 9/9/14, 12:02 PM