Social media posts inciting hate and division have “real world consequences” and there is a responsibility to regulate content, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted on Friday, following Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme in the United States.
Governments don’t grant rights, they can only restrict them.
They can recognize them. But nice strawman.
It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what you wrote.
The Bill of Rights in the US only exists to prevent encroachment on individual rights, they’re not necessary in order for people to have them. Arguably, governments only have rights explicitly granted to them, because they only exist due to the people submitting themselves to them.
It’s an important distinction, and one so many seem to misunderstand. I’m not saying you do, I’m merely clarifying in case someone else does.
And, in reality, the only rights that remain are those that have been fought for. “Inalienable rights, granted by the Creator” is a lovely concept, but it’s not self-enforcing, and as we’ve seen, rights can be effectively nullified by a corrupt Supreme Court and a fascist legislature and executive branch. OK, you can pretend they still exist in the abstract, but they’re de facto gone if state institutions or people power don’t defend them.
Agreed. In fact, the whole concept of inalienable rights, specifically the phase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, was used to justify the American Revolution. In essence, people are endowed with certain rights from their creator, one of which is deciding which powers to be subject to. If your government doesn’t represent your interests, you have the moral right to reject it and seek to replace it with one that does.
So yes, we absolutely need to fight to protect the rights we do have, and reestablish those we lost. Giving up even more rights in the process is counter-productive. We need more movements like the Civil Rights movement to demand change. We’ve given up too much power to the police, intelligence agencies, and more, and we should absolutely actively resist and demand restoration of our full rights.
You ignored the point I was making to argue about semantics. Still are. That’s a strawman.
And what was that point? My point is that freedom of speech has nothing to do with private platforms.
I stated my point very bluntly in the comment you replied to above. Freedom of speech is not “merely a restriction on government”. It is a concept that exists outside of government entirely. And it has everything to do with anywhere speech is expressed, including private platforms.
Rights only make sense in the context of governments, which have the power to strip my rights through imprisonment. I have no right to speech on a private platform or on private property, I am there at the pleasure of the owner. So talking about rights (esp freedom of speech) makes no sense outside the context of government.
That’s why I argue that rights are a restriction (or a check) on the power of governments. Only a tyrannical government will attempt to abridge my rights.
Yes, it exists outside of government as a function of your nature, but that means nothing outside the context of an authority with the power to strip it away.
We weren’t talking about the “right” to free speech. We were just talking about free speech.
Ok, and what does that mean if not the right to free speech?
Just because the far right tries to change the definition to forcing private platforms to letting them say what they want doesn’t change anything. That’s not free speech, that’s restricting the platform owner’s speech. Free speech is a restriction on the types of laws governments can pass regarding speech (i.e. forcing a major platform to accept a user’s speech would certainly be a violation).
The political right can’t change that definition for the same reason the political left can’t force deplatforming of “hate speech.”