It’s still censorship. The distinction is that most private entities can’t enforce their censorship with violence.
There’s also the fact that you can simply walk away from the business with minimal loss
Unless they have a monopoly
Unless you’re under contract.
Right, I was wondering if there might be a distinct term so that it might be clearer that a private entity’s action is not a violation of rights in the sense that a government action might be. Thinking mainly of why xkcd #1357 tends to come up a lot
I think the key is to make sure you differentiate it from freedom of speech. The 1st amendment only applies to the government censoring you, while censorship isn’t exclusive to the government.
Idiots on the internet are going to idiot - just bop them on the head as soon as they say “Facebook is infringing on muh first ammendment!”
You may find this post by the eminent First Amendment lawyer Ken White (aka PopeHat on social media) a useful read: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry
As a summary, he distinguishes the different facets of the free speech debate into three categories: free speech rights (FSR), free speech culture (FSC), and speech decency (SD). FSRs are those protected in law and vary depending on country and historical precedences. Whereas FSC manifests itself in how private actors conduct themselves, sometimes very inviting of opposing voices and other times not so much. Finally, SD is closer to social morals, and the application of speech to fight other speech.
If we accept Mr PopeHat’s assessment, then the term you’re looking for may lay somewhere between FSC and SD, since private entities will have their – sometimes great/justified/meh/awful – reasons for declining to platform certain types of speech.
I suppose it may be plausible to describe a private censor as “free speech unprincipled” or “free speech uncultured” if they act within the law but not within the accepted FSC.
Depending on where something like this (cancelling a person, basically telling them they’re a social outcast as indicated in the linked comic, etc) happens, it wouldn’t necessarily violate constitutional rights, but it may qualify as emotional abuse and some places consider emotional abuse a crime equal to crimes like domestic abuse. It could also be fought in civil court where such a suit would not be considered criminal, which would likely be charged as “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” It could be argued that the person is being treated too harshly or something, but that would be on a case by case basis.
Just because a constitutional right is not being violated doesn’t mean something is right or okay to do, or that you are somehow safe from legal repercussions if the person decides to sue over it. Of course, the same legal action is also available to a person that feels offended/hurt/distressed/etc by something someone else says. You can sue for anything, afterall.
Businesses, just like people, also have the right to trespass people off of their private property, and I would imagine that forums and message boards of companies would be legally considered like such private property. So if someone is violating the rules, maybe they could try to sue for emotional distress but that case would be near impossible to win. The business/forum owner has the right to tell anyone they want to leave for any reason they want. Thats how it is.
Yeah its called Terms of Service
Censorship is censorship. However, there’s a difference between government, censorship and censorship by private entities. Most free governments provide a framework for free speech, and thereby government censorship is seen as a violation of free speech. Similarly, that government provided free speech also protects private organizations, so they may, limit expression on Internet platforms, they host, for example. They can do what they want with their own property.
If you don’t like being censored by a private entity, you, as a private entity, can create your own platform with your own guidelines, on censorship, and or freedom of speech.
Usually it’s just called being a business. Outside of safeharbor eligible businesses you’re responsible for everything in your business.
If I walked into a Cafe and posted a meet up notice for an overtly offensive neonazi club the Cafe would be potentially liable for any damage if it failed to remove the notice in a reasonably timely manner.
If I walked into a Cafe and posted a meet up notice for an overtly offensive neonazi club
…
And what liability would there be in this instance? You realize that an overtly offensive neonazi club is legally protected free speech, and that even if Jewish patrons were deeply offended by the posting, it wouldn’t mean that they had been ‘harmed’ under civil law, right? If the owner of the cafe had a policy allowing all flyers to be posted that didn’t violate the law, then Jewish (and gay, Romani, etc.) employees would have a hard time arguing that the cafe, as a place of employment, was engaging in harassing speech, religious discrimination, etc.
On the other hand, what the cafe would be liable for is the loss of business that would likely occur when patrons discovered that the owner was okay with overt nazis hosting meetups at the cafe. The rights of the owner to allow offensive speech doesn’t mean that they also have the right to the business of their patrons.
Sometimes I’ve heard people say such a policy has a “chilling effect” in this context. But that’s probably not what you’re looking for.
What about businesses that have extra protection from the government that prevents you from sueing them?
NDA? Color-of-law? Might need more details or an example.
In what context? Are you referring to Trade Secrets or Commercial-in-Confidence?
Republicanism?
No, typically Republicans are trying to use the power of the gov’t to restrict free speech (see also: don’t say gay laws, book bans, RFRAs, etc.). Although Dems do it too, typically with attempts to restrict social media platforms to “protect the children”.
