Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
This is so backwards...
It's much easier to hold corporations liable than individual people - liability is basically the entire point of corporations, and they are subject to far more rules (and enjoy far fewer rights) than people.
And always treating corporate speech as the speech of individual members of the corporation would just mean they have stronger free speech protections.
I mean, I just really don't see what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying "the problem is that while the government can easily throw individuals in jail for speech, and that's a good thing, they can't do the same to companies." That... doesn't sound like a great way of looking at it to me.
It's a great idea, but the reality is it'll never "take" as long as corporate personhood remains a thing
Corporate personhood is not "a thing", it's just a vague concept describing the ongoing question of precisely what constitutional rights corporations have. It's not some switch that gets turned on and off - so you saying it needs to be eliminated is pretty meaningless. You have to describe what change to the rights afforded to corporations you are actually envisioning, with at least some level of detail.
What does corporations not having free speech rights actually mean?
What would prevent the government passing a law about what newspapers or book publishers are allowed to print, for example? What defense would exist when a publishing company or a journalism organization is sued for something they published?
The first amendment would still protect the writers and editors as individuals, of course, so nobody could go after their assets or seek an injunction against them personally, and the government couldn't pass laws about what individuals are allowed to publish on their own - but what would prevent complete and total government control of all publishing other than that done by unincorporated individuals?
It is entirely possible to reform the lobbying system, and reduce the undue influence of business and money on politics and regulation, without relying on a restrictive interpretation of the first amendment to do so.
There are even detailed legislative proposals for how to accomplish this, backed by constitutional lawyers who have vetted them to ensure they don't conflict with the first amendment. For example, read about the American Anti-Corruption Act: https://anticorruptionact.org/
This is a far superior approach to the half-baked idea of excluding corporate entities from the first amendment - which neither makes sense nor has any conceivable path to becoming a reality.
The issue here is them moderating TOO much content and providing no way for people to get it reinstated. Not them refusing to boot people off the service. So it's not really clear what you're saying here...
I do know a lot of them are dead but the time it would take to check all of them, find alternative links, and replace them would just not be worth it for the fairly low number of people who click through and then through again from this post every week. I'd love to do it for you folks but I gotta prioritize :) At some point I will think about trying to automate it, but that could get finnicky...
These things are evaluated by humans - judges and juries - who take context into consideration and try to determine how an average, reasonable reader would understand a statement that was made.
As such, there are no "magic words" in making the determination. A statement opening with "I think" might still rise to the level of defamation if it implies your thoughts are based on special knowledge of (false) facts that you are not sharing. Conversely, a statement that doesn't open with "I think" can still be seen as opinion by the very nature of what is stated.
I suggest taking a step back, and reading through Kate Manne's Vox interview in full again (or for the first time if you haven't already). It's not very long.
It is very critical of Peterson, and says some harsh things about him and raises some theories about him that would reflect very badly on him if they are true. But it is, from top to bottom, a case of a person simply reading his book and watching his videos and then honestly expressing their opinions and reactions. It might, to some readers, change or darken their opinion of Peterson - but there is not a word in there that could leave any reader with the impression that they have learned new (false) facts about Peterson.
Seriously, read that interview and imagine a world where that level of criticism was deemed actionable libel. Think about all our political discourse, our social discourse, our global conversation about the most important and the most trivial topics. Think how much of it would fall afoul of such a widely applicable concept of defamation.
You are allowed to accuse people of terrible things, so long as your accusations are a matter of opinion rather than a claim that you know special secret facts that prove their guilt.
That's why Jordan Peterson is allowed to say that left-wing politicians and academics "subscribe to a mass-murdering ideology" and are seeking to "destroy Western civilization". Those are some pretty heavy accusations - and he doesn't even bother opening with "I think" or "I believe" most of the time! But he's free to make them, and others are free to accuse him of things in response.
If you have your doubts about (f), read the full paragraph in context:
"I’d raise an alternative explanation: Maybe she was raped — five times, as she stated — and then was effectively undermined or even gaslit by her therapist. To be clear, I’m not saying that that is what happened. I can’t possibly know, on the basis of what Peterson writes here. But I’d certainly like to know more, and I’m surprised Peterson has not yet been asked about these and similar passages, in which he comes across as highly contemptuous of female clients."
Kinda couldn't be more explicitly clear that it is a matter of opinion and speculation, based solely on the passage in his book (which she quoted right beforehand), not an assertion of fact. It's not even close to defamation.
So far all I have heard is that "Peterson is against Compelled speech by the government". This is not proof of Peterson being a hypocrite because as you all know... once you break the law, you lose certain rights and privileges as part of that punishment and that could be "compelled speech" as a result. The speech that might be compelled as a punishment for breaking the law is NOT the same as speech being compelled from a law saying you have to say this guilty or not. And Leigh is just too fucking dumb to understand that!
Well, you are correct that I do not understand what the fuck you just said. As to whose dumbness is to blame, I suppose I'll leave that to each reader to decide for themselves.
In that phrase, consequences has always been intended to mean social or economic consequences - as in, other people exercising their own freedoms in reaction to your speech.
Unfortunately some people have weirdly co-opted it to include things like lawsuits under the header of "consequences". In that context, you are certainly correct: to say "freedom of [x] does not mean freedom from legal, government-enforced consequences" certainly does render the entire concept of "freedom" utterly meaningless.
But that meaning is not what was intended here. I suppose, as Thad suggested above, we who use the phrase correctly might need to start clarifying our meaning. That's bloody frustrating though since the other usage is so utterly stupid, and so completely devoid of any useful meaning whatsoever - even managing to obliterate the meaning of all the words it uses - that I'm still holding out hope we can ignore it until it goes away.
Jordan Peterson is also trying to spread the idea of intellectual freedom and unfettered, uncompelled speech.
Saying "I believe Jordan Peterson is a misogynist" is not slander. It is not an illegal offense. It is not even irresponsible. It is me expressing my opinion based on having read and listened to his ideas, but not seeking to silence him or compel him to say something different. That is precisely what Jordan Peterson claims to believe in.
Yes, now I understand that you don't believe in evolution because of your incredibly shaky understanding of what "scientific theory" means. I misunderstood before, my bad. I will stop talking to you now, as I probably should have some time ago.
Loves free speech and open dialogue, sues someone over some criticism and demands they apologize.
That's all the "evidence" and "proof" I need, thanks.
To quote someone who definitely thinks of themselves as one of history's greatest minds: "People do not have to be aware they are hypocrites to be one."
Indeed, I would. You might recognize this as the reason that, even though Kate Manne and Vox laughed off Peterson's threat and never retracted anything or issued the compelled apology he demanded, he never actually took them to court.
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: What does corporations not having free speech rights actuall
This is so backwards...
It's much easier to hold corporations liable than individual people - liability is basically the entire point of corporations, and they are subject to far more rules (and enjoy far fewer rights) than people.
And always treating corporate speech as the speech of individual members of the corporation would just mean they have stronger free speech protections.
I mean, I just really don't see what you're getting at here. You seem to be saying "the problem is that while the government can easily throw individuals in jail for speech, and that's a good thing, they can't do the same to companies." That... doesn't sound like a great way of looking at it to me.
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re:
It's a great idea, but the reality is it'll never "take" as long as corporate personhood remains a thing
Corporate personhood is not "a thing", it's just a vague concept describing the ongoing question of precisely what constitutional rights corporations have. It's not some switch that gets turned on and off - so you saying it needs to be eliminated is pretty meaningless. You have to describe what change to the rights afforded to corporations you are actually envisioning, with at least some level of detail.
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re: Re: Re:
What would prevent the government passing a law about what newspapers or book publishers are allowed to print, for example? What defense would exist when a publishing company or a journalism organization is sued for something they published?
The first amendment would still protect the writers and editors as individuals, of course, so nobody could go after their assets or seek an injunction against them personally, and the government couldn't pass laws about what individuals are allowed to publish on their own - but what would prevent complete and total government control of all publishing other than that done by unincorporated individuals?
On the post: Facebook's Use Of Smear Merchants Is The Norm, Not The Exception
Re:
There are even detailed legislative proposals for how to accomplish this, backed by constitutional lawyers who have vetted them to ensure they don't conflict with the first amendment. For example, read about the American Anti-Corruption Act: https://anticorruptionact.org/
This is a far superior approach to the half-baked idea of excluding corporate entities from the first amendment - which neither makes sense nor has any conceivable path to becoming a reality.
On the post: Rights Groups Demand Facebook Set Up Real Due Process Around Content Moderation
Re: The point being missed here is...
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: November 4th - 10th
Re: Do You Check Links In Those Old Articles?
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re:
These things are evaluated by humans - judges and juries - who take context into consideration and try to determine how an average, reasonable reader would understand a statement that was made.
As such, there are no "magic words" in making the determination. A statement opening with "I think" might still rise to the level of defamation if it implies your thoughts are based on special knowledge of (false) facts that you are not sharing. Conversely, a statement that doesn't open with "I think" can still be seen as opinion by the very nature of what is stated.
I suggest taking a step back, and reading through Kate Manne's Vox interview in full again (or for the first time if you haven't already). It's not very long.
It is very critical of Peterson, and says some harsh things about him and raises some theories about him that would reflect very badly on him if they are true. But it is, from top to bottom, a case of a person simply reading his book and watching his videos and then honestly expressing their opinions and reactions. It might, to some readers, change or darken their opinion of Peterson - but there is not a word in there that could leave any reader with the impression that they have learned new (false) facts about Peterson.
Seriously, read that interview and imagine a world where that level of criticism was deemed actionable libel. Think about all our political discourse, our social discourse, our global conversation about the most important and the most trivial topics. Think how much of it would fall afoul of such a widely applicable concept of defamation.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re:
That's why Jordan Peterson is allowed to say that left-wing politicians and academics "subscribe to a mass-murdering ideology" and are seeking to "destroy Western civilization". Those are some pretty heavy accusations - and he doesn't even bother opening with "I think" or "I believe" most of the time! But he's free to make them, and others are free to accuse him of things in response.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have your doubts about (f), read the full paragraph in context:
Kinda couldn't be more explicitly clear that it is a matter of opinion and speculation, based solely on the passage in his book (which she quoted right beforehand), not an assertion of fact. It's not even close to defamation.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
So far all I have heard is that "Peterson is against Compelled speech by the government". This is not proof of Peterson being a hypocrite because as you all know... once you break the law, you lose certain rights and privileges as part of that punishment and that could be "compelled speech" as a result. The speech that might be compelled as a punishment for breaking the law is NOT the same as speech being compelled from a law saying you have to say this guilty or not. And Leigh is just too fucking dumb to understand that!
Well, you are correct that I do not understand what the fuck you just said. As to whose dumbness is to blame, I suppose I'll leave that to each reader to decide for themselves.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re:
In that phrase, consequences has always been intended to mean social or economic consequences - as in, other people exercising their own freedoms in reaction to your speech.
Unfortunately some people have weirdly co-opted it to include things like lawsuits under the header of "consequences". In that context, you are certainly correct: to say "freedom of [x] does not mean freedom from legal, government-enforced consequences" certainly does render the entire concept of "freedom" utterly meaningless.
But that meaning is not what was intended here. I suppose, as Thad suggested above, we who use the phrase correctly might need to start clarifying our meaning. That's bloody frustrating though since the other usage is so utterly stupid, and so completely devoid of any useful meaning whatsoever - even managing to obliterate the meaning of all the words it uses - that I'm still holding out hope we can ignore it until it goes away.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re:
Saying "I believe Jordan Peterson is a misogynist" is not slander. It is not an illegal offense. It is not even irresponsible. It is me expressing my opinion based on having read and listened to his ideas, but not seeking to silence him or compel him to say something different. That is precisely what Jordan Peterson claims to believe in.
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
If evolution is true then we must allow the weak to die so that evolution can continue to allow humans to evolve
...
Just because I recognize the fact that using science to save people help pollute the gene pool does not mean that I support that.
...
So, er, which is it?
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
That's all the "evidence" and "proof" I need, thanks.
To quote someone who definitely thinks of themselves as one of history's greatest minds: "People do not have to be aware they are hypocrites to be one."
On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...
Sue away, you will only lose.
Indeed, I would. You might recognize this as the reason that, even though Kate Manne and Vox laughed off Peterson's threat and never retracted anything or issued the compelled apology he demanded, he never actually took them to court.
Next >>