Reddit's got it right: free speech is an ideal independent of laws

[bemused_leftist]

Attributed to Reddit administrators:
We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it. Not because that's the law in the United States - because as many people have pointed out, privately-owned forums are under no obligation to

Comments

[ron_newman]

OK, but does that apply to every sub-reddit? Reddit and most other online forums (including LJ communities) would be unusable without some judicious moderation to keep things on-topic and spam-free.

[bemused_leftist]

I'm not that familiar with Reddit. Of course moderation is needed, and even making one's own forum a 'safe space' to develop the ideas of one's own tribe is needed for larger free speech.

My point here is showcasing different people using different terms to show that 'free speech' is an ideal independent of laws, and shouldn't be dismissed as xkcd and others are doing.

[ron_newman]

If you run a private forum (online or otherwise), you may sometimes have to treat 'free speech' as a utility-maximizing function rather than as an absolute. Let's say there are 100 people in a forum, and one of them is a raving bigot whose rants make life unpleasant for the other 99. You can remove the disruptor, or you can do nothing and watch 80 other people leave in disgust. If you choose the latter, have you really protected free speech?

[bemused_leftist]

Sure, safe spaces are good for the discourse in general. But a principle such as 'free speech' can apply universally, but to different extents in different cases. There's always some room for differing views, or there wouldn't be any room for discussion or developing consensus or at least better differing views.

I don't much tolerate raving unpleasant posts here, and imo no forum should.

[fengi]

Reddit has a history of refusing to ban abusive/illegal content like upskirt pictures and non-consensual pictures of women. They revel in harassment and threads which call for the rape and harassment of "enemies". They are free to do so, but those chosing to do so are free to be revealed for who they are. That's the how free speech works.

Reddit uses that rhetoric as a pretext to profit from abusive and harassing communties, who often advocate harassment and behavior which victimized people in ostensibly legal ways and also to protect themselves from people who get exposed as bigots and then suffer the consequences. It's not high minded, it's just a "you can't sue us" mentality.

[ron_newman]

My impression is that Reddit is a collection of many independent fiefdoms, each of which is free to set its own rules. What's OK in /r/Boston might be forbidden in /r/LosAngeles , or vice versa.

[bemused_leftist]

That's an example of ad hominem -- accusing your opponent of having bad motives, instead of focusing on zis actual statement.

Regardless of where Reddit admins got that statement, or why they posted it -- it still neatly makes a good point: that the ideal of 'free speech' is independent of laws, is an ideal which stands on its own, and which the larger unofficial community should honor rather than try to destroy (as xkcd did).