This is correct, those two ideas are often mistaken for each other.
Reddit is not a governmental entity, and as a private platform, has every right to decide what speech it will or will not publish.
But we can wish that Reddit as a speech platform would embrace the principles of the First Amendment rather than suppressing all the speech it doesn't like.
> But we can wish that Reddit as a speech platform would embrace the principles of the First Amendment rather than suppressing all the speech it doesn't like.
That's easy to say when you aren't liable for any damages caused by said speech.
This seems rather ironic, since TD was banning people that went against the majority opinion.
If TD is repeatedly violating freedom of speech principles what exactly is your recourse to ensure they comply and adhere to freedom of speech? If we accept that TD has the right to ban users it doesn't like, then we accept that Reddit has the right to ban subreddits it doesn't like.
To repeat a trite argument, that is the case for the free speech that is guaranteed under the US constitution. Free speech advocates usually claim that either reddit does indeed violate that constitutional right (similarly to how it applies to federally funded private companies) or that the human right of free speech is violated.
This second version is assumed to exist a priori from any state/law similarly to how international human right conventions Recognize human rights rather than Create them.
Doesn't the concept of freedom of speech necessitate the freedom from speech, ie. the right to remain silent? To force a company to say something they don't want to is in my opinion worse than allowing them to say nothing. I don't expect Breitbart to voice my opinions, for instance, and I don't expect Twitter to voice theirs if they don't want to.
Is there a "real" definition of hate speech? It seems like a hard to define rule. I also hate Trump but am allowed to say any horrible thing I want to about him, but if I were to same the same things about Hilary (I also hated her as a politician) it would be hate speech.
No, which is why it’s such a slippery slope and why places like the US have such broad laws protecting speech. As the old adage goes, it’s not good speech that needs protecting.
Unless you're saying horrible things about her by attacking her gender, then it wouldn't be hate speech.
If you have a difficult time saying horrible things about Hillary Clinton without attacking her gender, you might actually be sexist. Think about it. How do you really feel about women?
Do you mean like attacking members of her own gender when she persecuted her husband's rape victims to protect her own political aspirations? I imagine Juanita Broddrick would have something to say about this?
I think your reply is irrelevant to what I've written. I'm not defending Hillary. My point is that if you can't attack Hillary Clinton (a politician) without gender slandering, you're probably be sexist.
> If you have a difficult time saying horrible things about Hillary Clinton without attacking her gender, you might actually be sexist. Think about it. How do you really feel about women?
It is unclear for me where this comes from? Did GP update their post after you replied or did you reply to something GP didn't say or even imply?
