- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
During the last recession many businesses were deemed "too big to fail". IE: So big that if they were not bailed out it would constitute a crisis situation. Essentially requiring that special rules be made in order to save the country. Could the same be applied to Big businesses in regards to free speech? For example and more specifically sites that are more often than not are used for conveying speech and expression such as Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc etc.
The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.
Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.
Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.
The reason that I ask this is because the idea and reasoning behind having free speech is so that things that the majority of people disagreed with can still be talked about with out interference by the government. An entity that, if left unchecked, could suppress things it didn't like because it has power. Power that the normal citizen by him or herself could not hope to defend against on their own. It seems to me that companies such as the above mentioned having the majority of users than most any other site could have the same chilling effect that the government could if left unchecked. Indeed being private companies they don't really have any checks and as such could suppress speech just as effectively as a generic government could. As such would it be unreasonable if such companies had the same free speech restrictions as the government? IE: Not able to censor or negatively affect speech that they do not like.
Note that I am usually one that upholds free speech for individuals and companies so I do not ask this question lightly.
Now I do know that some would be against this simply due to the fact that they think "hate speech" should be squashed and "hate speech is not free speech". I will simply ignore those platitudes because those people do not know what free speech is actually about. But I would like to hear from others on this.