WND vs Google

[KZN02]

Source

So basically Google is taking issue with some particular hate speech WND is using and is threatening to stop running ads on the site, and WND is countering with blocking Google ads and complaining that it has First Amendment rights to post whatever it thinks is fine.

[Katsuro]

First amendment rights are irrlevent.  Unless WND thinks Google is the government.

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

[I am lizard]

Time for them to start masturbating about how this is "Just like Hitler".

I'll get the Vaseline and tissues.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I thought these people would be pro-business.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

I thought these people would be pro-business.

Not when that business DARES TO DEFY THEM!  It's hypocrisy at its finest.

[Lt. Fred]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

[I am lizard]

So who wants to place bets as to how long it takes before they godwin?

[Sigmaleph]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue.

How should that work? Should Google and similar companies be legally obliged to buy adspace from everyone? Or are they not allowed to drop existing clients over racism/sexism/etc.? Could Google include in their new contracts a clause regarding content it finds objectionable?

The above questions are not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.

[Random Gal]

First amendment rights are irrlevent.  Unless WND thinks Google is the government.

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

Does that mean businesses are allowed to "decide they don't want to deal with you anymore" because of your race/sex/religion/sexual orientation?

[dpareja]

First amendment rights are irrlevent.  Unless WND thinks Google is the government.

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

Does that mean businesses are allowed to "decide they don't want to deal with you anymore" because of your race/sex/religion/sexual orientation?

Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech are only protections against the government. These sorts of things are handled by statutory laws, like human rights codes.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue.

You have the right to free speech. What you do not have is the right to free speech without consequences.

[Id82]

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

If a company has in it's clause or contracts or business models that it's anti discrimination, anti prejudice etc. They have every right to fire or drop someone that goes against their business practices.
As for freedom of speech, they have the right to say whatever they want. But don't expect people to just stand there and take it. It's like going up to someone on the street and calling them an asshole for no particular reason and then not expecting a confrontation from it.

[Ironchew]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

In an interpretation of the "your fist ends where my nose begins" variety, yes, Congress cannot pass a law abridging your free speech. You do not have the right to hijack someone else's venue for your speech. Therefore, on private property, the owner does reserve the right to kick you out for saying things in his venue he doesn't want you to say.

[I am lizard]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

In an interpretation of the "your fist ends where my nose begins" variety, yes, Congress cannot pass a law abridging your free speech. You do not have the right to hijack someone else's venue for your speech. Therefore, on private property, the owner does reserve the right to kick you out for saying things in his venue he doesn't want you to say.

Are you sure?
 I'm pretty sure it was Putupwithmybullshitorelsehitler.

[Lt. Fred]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue.

How should that work? Should Google and similar companies be legally obliged to buy adspace from everyone? Or are they not allowed to drop existing clients over racism/sexism/etc.? Could Google include in their new contracts a clause regarding content it finds objectionable?

The above questions are not rhetorical, I'm genuinely asking.

Those are serious questions that actually matter, and I don't have an easy answer for them. One idea I've had is to totally ban all advertising: no paying anyone to advocate for you outside court, on television or off.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue.

You have the right to free speech. What you do not have is the right to free speech without consequences.

You have the same right in North Korea, the consequences are just different.

Obviously, if you are free to do something, that means you are free to do it without unreasonable punishment. When I say I have freedom of speech, that means nobody can come to my house and arrest me for saying something they don't like on radio. But if someone else can punish me - by firing me, or denying me income - am I really free to speak? No.

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

In an interpretation of the "your fist ends where my nose begins" variety, yes, Congress cannot pass a law abridging your free speech. You do not have the right to hijack someone else's venue for your speech. Therefore, on private property, the owner does reserve the right to kick you out for saying things in his venue he doesn't want you to say.

Now, should freedom of speech have limits? Sure. Absolutely. Defamation law is one of those - you can't make up a bunch of lies about someone because you don't like them. Do you think one of those limits on freedom of speech should be that speech should not be against corporate interest?

[Katsuro]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the athorities penalising you for speaking your mind, it doesn't stop private businesses from deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore.  Google has that right.

That's some bullshit. You have a right to free speech period. It doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right - whether it is by throwing you in a dungeon, or by threatening to fire you, or dropping advertising revenue. In fact, I'd actually prefer a system where the press were afraid of being jailed by the government over the present system where they're afraid of being driven bankrupt by mad self-interested business.

That's some even bigger bullshit.  For a start, deciding I no longer want to do business with you is not violating your right to free speech, that's ridiculous.  Do you think a consumer choosing not to shop at a particular store because of disgriminatory practices or because the head of said business said something racist/homophobic etc should be illegal?  Because that's not really much different.  What about if I go into a gay bar and start audibly saying homophobic shit but without being actually abusive to anyone, should it be illegal for the staff to ask me to leave? Or, fuck, even someone telling someone else to shut the hell up should be illegal too?  After all, you said it doesn't matter who tries to deny you that right.