Private Censorship: An Issue of Free Speech or of Other Considerations?

[Debater Slayer]

This thread (by @Orbit) has had me thinking about censorship at private institutions and on private platforms and what the acceptable limits to that should be.

I believe that private entities should legally be able to allow or disallow speech within their premises or platforms, but I also believe that this could be abused to shut down necessary speech and criticism. I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Is censorship on private premises or within the facilities provided by private entities a free speech issue, then, or should individual instances thereof be assessed separately primarily based on their moral and intellectual ramifications—among other factors—rather than on whether or not they adhere to principles of free speech?

I generally lean toward the former. If I argue that private entities shouldn't be allowed to censor speech on their own premises or within their own facilities, I'm effectively saying that owners of private entities should be obliged to allow a white supremacist, ideological extremist, or blatant homophobe to copiously promote hatred and discord within said entities' facilities without repercussions. A consequence of this is that I must accept the legal right to private censorship even when I find some instances of practicing it to be utterly reprehensible and harmful. I can and will continue to criticize certain universities' actions as such, but that is mainly because of the deleterious humanitarian, ethical, and social consequences of their actions, not mainly because of any argument about free speech or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to point out the inconsistency of some people's positions when they denounce private censorship of certain speech as an "attack on free speech" but readily embrace or ignore it when the target of the censorship is speech they disapprove of or disagree with. As I said, I believe acceptance of private entities' legal right to censorship cuts both ways—it seems to me the lesser evil compared to forcing private entities to allow all speech within their facilities. For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Thanks for the post. I want to give it more thought but first a couple of questions:

1. Am I correct in assuming that the segment of your post quoted above applies only to private universities?
2. Turning from universities to companies that serve the public, would you distinguish between, e.g., Starbucks headquarters and Starbucks coffeehouses?

Thanks.

 

[Orbit]

This thread (by @Orbit) has had me thinking about censorship at private institutions and on private platforms and what the acceptable limits to that should be.

I believe that private entities should legally be able to allow or disallow speech within their premises or platforms, but I also believe that this could be abused to shut down necessary speech and criticism. I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Is censorship on private premises or within the facilities provided by private entities a free speech issue, then, or should individual instances thereof be assessed separately primarily based on their moral and intellectual ramifications—among other factors—rather than on whether or not they adhere to principles of free speech?

I generally lean toward the former. If I argue that private entities shouldn't be allowed to censor speech on their own premises or within their own facilities, I'm effectively saying that owners of private entities should be obliged to allow a white supremacist, ideological extremist, or blatant homophobe to copiously promote hatred and discord within said entities' facilities without repercussions. A consequence of this is that I must accept the legal right to private censorship even when I find some instances of practicing it to be utterly reprehensible and harmful.

However, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to point out the inconsistency of some people's positions when they denounce private censorship of certain speech as an "attack on free speech" but readily embrace or ignore it when the target of the censorship is speech they disapprove of or disagree with. As I said, I believe acceptance of private entities' legal right to censorship cuts both ways—it seems to me the lesser evil compared to forcing private entities to allow all speech within their facilities. For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?

The OP of my thread lays out U.S. law with respect to free speech on campus, and there *is* a legal requirement that it be allowed. There is a saying in the U.S. that encapsulates this "I may not agree with what you're saying but I will fight for your right to say it." And it does cut both ways; speech that we don't like has just as much of a right to be heard as speech we do like. Now, there are exceptions, such as bona fide hate speech, or incitement to violence, and I'm fine with that.

I find it unfortunate that the same laws don't apply to private entities.

I also find it unfortunate that in times of crisis, mass hysteria threatens free speech.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thanks for the post. I want to give it more thought but first a couple of questions:

1. Am I correct in assuming that the segment of your post quoted above applies only to private universities?

No, I'm also talking about other private entities including (but not limited to) media outlets, platforms such as Netflix and YouTube, and corporations.

Turning from universities to companies that serve the public, would you distinguish between, e.g., Starbucks headquarters and Starbucks coffeehouses?
Thanks.

That's a good question. Cursorily, I would say yes, because the coffeehouses are more public. Legally, though, I haven't thought enough about whether a meaningful distinction could be made when it comes to regulating speech in each.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The OP of my thread lays out U.S. law with respect to free speech on campus, and there *is* a legal requirement that it be allowed.

Does the requirement apply to private universities? I thought private entities weren't bound by the highly relaxed limits of speech laid out in the First Amendment, since it applies to the government (as I understand; correct me if I'm wrong here).

There is a saying in the U.S. that encapsulates this "I may not agree with what you're saying but I will fight for your right to say it." And it does cut both ways; speech that we don't like has just as much of a right to be heard as speech we do like. Now, there are exceptions, such as bona fide hate speech, or incitement to violence, and I'm fine with that.

Does the First Amendment prohibit any hate speech, though? As far as I know, even neo-Nazis can publicly promote their speech and display their regalia in the US, which is different from much of Europe, for example.

Also, absent legal guidelines, where do we draw the line as to what a private entity should censor as hate speech? Anti-vaxxers are legally allowed to promote their views in the US, but I overwhelmingly favor the decisions of the private entities that refused to give them a platform or afford them exposure. Should those entities have allowed anti-vax speakers on the basis of upholding free speech?

I find it unfortunate that the same laws don't apply to private entities.

If they did, how would situations like the above hypotheticals play out?

I also find it unfortunate that in times of crisis, mass hysteria threatens free speech.

I think it varies, as does what I would label "mass hysteria" as opposed to understandable or necessary pushback. To dovetail this with the hypothetical about anti-vax speech, some anti-vaxxers have indeed labeled the deplatforming of their speech as "mass hysteria," "censorship," etc., but I think the deplatforming was an example of necessary precaution and prevention of further harm during a time of crisis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This thread (by @Orbit) has had me thinking about censorship at private institutions and on private platforms and what the acceptable limits to that should be.

I believe that private entities should legally be able to allow or disallow speech within their premises or platforms, but I also believe that this could be abused to shut down necessary speech and criticism. I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Is censorship on private premises or within the facilities provided by private entities a free speech issue, then, or should individual instances thereof be assessed separately primarily based on their moral and intellectual ramifications—among other factors—rather than on whether or not they adhere to principles of free speech?

I generally lean toward the former. If I argue that private entities shouldn't be allowed to censor speech on their own premises or within their own facilities, I'm effectively saying that owners of private entities should be obliged to allow a white supremacist, ideological extremist, or blatant homophobe to copiously promote hatred and discord within said entities' facilities without repercussions. A consequence of this is that I must accept the legal right to private censorship even when I find some instances of practicing it to be utterly reprehensible and harmful. I can and will continue to criticize certain universities' actions as such, but that is mainly because of the deleterious humanitarian, ethical, and social consequences of their actions, not mainly because of any argument about free speech or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to point out the inconsistency of some people's positions when they denounce private censorship of certain speech as an "attack on free speech" but readily embrace or ignore it when the target of the censorship is speech they disapprove of or disagree with. As I said, I believe acceptance of private entities' legal right to censorship cuts both ways—it seems to me the lesser evil compared to forcing private entities to allow all speech within their facilities. For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?

Disagree.

Mostly that "private" as a designation shouldn't ever be applied to publicly traded and owned companies and corporations that are owned by no single individual.

Such publicly owned places need to adhere to the provisions laid out by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and be subject to legal recourse if those provisions are violated as they are with public entities.

 

[Orbit]

Does the First Amendment prohibit any hate speech, though? As far as I know, even neo-Nazis can publicly promote their speech and display their regalia in the US, which is different from much of Europe, for example.

Also, absent legal guidelines, where do we draw the line as to what a private entity should censor as hate speech? Anti-vaxxers are legally allowed to promote their views in the US, but I overwhelmingly favor the decisions of the private entities that refused to give them a platform or afford them exposure. Should those entities have allowed anti-vax speakers on the basis of upholding free speech?



If they did, how would situations like the above hypotheticals play out?



I think it varies, as does what I would label "mass hysteria" as opposed to understandable or necessary pushback. To dovetail this with the hypothetical about anti-vax speech, some anti-vaxxers have indeed labeled the deplatforming of their speech as "mass hysteria," "censorship," etc., but I think the deplatforming was an example of necessary precaution and prevention of further harm during a time of crisis.

There are hate speech laws that are separate from the 1st amendment, and act to modify it.

About anti-vax people, my personal view is that they are a menace to public health, and should be debunked and vigorously challenged--but they unfortunately have the right to speak their nonsense. The cure for "bad" speech is more speech. That's just my personal view, though.

When I mentioned mass hysteria, I was thinking of the U.S. right after 9/11. It was a scary time, with all these hyper-patriots laser-focused on destroying anything or anyone having any connection with anything Muslim.

 

[bobhikes]

N

This thread (by @Orbit) has had me thinking about censorship at private institutions and on private platforms and what the acceptable limits to that should be.

I believe that private entities should legally be able to allow or disallow speech within their premises or platforms, but I also believe that this could be abused to shut down necessary speech and criticism. I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Is censorship on private premises or within the facilities provided by private entities a free speech issue, then, or should individual instances thereof be assessed separately primarily based on their moral and intellectual ramifications—among other factors—rather than on whether or not they adhere to principles of free speech?

I generally lean toward the former. If I argue that private entities shouldn't be allowed to censor speech on their own premises or within their own facilities, I'm effectively saying that owners of private entities should be obliged to allow a white supremacist, ideological extremist, or blatant homophobe to copiously promote hatred and discord within said entities' facilities without repercussions. A consequence of this is that I must accept the legal right to private censorship even when I find some instances of practicing it to be utterly reprehensible and harmful. I can and will continue to criticize certain universities' actions as such, but that is mainly because of the deleterious humanitarian, ethical, and social consequences of their actions, not mainly because of any argument about free speech or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to point out the inconsistency of some people's positions when they denounce private censorship of certain speech as an "attack on free speech" but readily embrace or ignore it when the target of the censorship is speech they disapprove of or disagree with. As I said, I believe acceptance of private entities' legal right to censorship cuts both ways—it seems to me the lesser evil compared to forcing private entities to allow all speech within their facilities. For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts would be based on the definition of private. In a private environment you should be allowed to censor anything. These universities are only privately owned, they are very much public in running. This is the same issue I have privately owned stores, they are also public in operations. This should eliminate or restrict their private exclusions. Do they use public workers less exclusions, are their clients from the general public less exclusions...etc. Hope that helps.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you distinguish between (public) UCLA and (private) Stanford?

 

[Debater Slayer]

There are hate speech laws that are separate from the 1st amendment, and act to modify it.

Thanks for the info. I will have to look into those and what kinds of speech they include.

About anti-vax people, my personal view is that they are a menace to public health, and should be debunked and vigorously challenged--but they unfortunately have the right to speak their nonsense. The cure for "bad" speech is more speech. That's just my personal view, though.

I agree they have the right to promote their views in public, but do they have the right to do so on the campuses of private universities like Harvard and Stanford or using privately owned platforms like Spotify and YouTube? This seems to me the central issue, since it is my understanding that governmental entities, including public universities, are already covered by the First Amendment. I would definitely view it as a violation of freedom of speech for a public university to censor any views that didn't violate other laws (e.g., laws about incitement).

When I mentioned mass hysteria, I was thinking of the U.S. right after 9/11. It was a scary time, with all these hyper-patriots laser-focused on destroying anything or anyone having any connection with anything Muslim.

I can see where you're coming from, and that's a salient example. In the case of the US' response to 9/11, I think what was said was as consequential as what may have been censored, and I would argue that some of it could fall under hate speech laws in some countries other than the US.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Would you distinguish between (public) UCLA and (private) Stanford?

In a legal sense, I believe so (at least per my understanding of how different countries set apart private universities from public ones), although I realize that in practice, their circumstances and effects on society are very similar.

 

[Orbit]

Thanks for the info. I will have to look into those and what kinds of speech they include.



I agree they have the right to promote their views in public, but do they have the right to do so on the campuses of private universities like Harvard and Stanford or using privately owned platforms like Spotify and YouTube? This seems to me the central issue, since it is my understanding that governmental entities, including public universities, are already covered by the First Amendment. I would definitely view it as a violation of freedom of speech for a public university to censor any views that didn't violate other laws (e.g., laws about incitement).



I can see where you're coming from, and that's a salient example. In the case of the US' response to 9/11, I think what was said was as consequential as what may have been censored, and I would argue that some of it could fall under hate speech laws in some countries other than the US.

Under the law, private universities are still universities, and students have 1st amendment rights there. See my OP in the other thread for the actual laws.

I don't agree with the fact that social media companies have no mandate to provide free speech, and often ironically end up propagating hate speech under the cover of free speech, but what can I do about it? It's a messy issue.

The post-9/11 silencing, as I call it, was terrible for the country. It kept people from asking questions that needed to be asked of the government and its policies. It led to a curtailing of civil rights due to the hastily passed "Patriot" Act, and led to two senseless, expensive, and tragic wars that achieved nothing in the end. But people felt good about it. War meant "we'll show *them*.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Under the law, private universities are still universities, and students have 1st amendment rights there. See my OP in the other thread for the actual laws.

Thanks. To what extent do students have First Amendment protection of speech? I'm asking because different sources I've read about this have stated that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private universities, although this Stanford Magazine article cites the Leonard Law in California as an extension of First Amendment rights to speech at universities:

The First Amendment applies only to the government, not to private organizations. In general, that means that while public universities are required to comply with the requirements of the First Amendment, private universities are not.

But in California the situation is different because of the Leonard Law. Enacted in 1992, that state law forbids all private, nonreligious universities in California from disciplining students for speech that is protected by the First Amendment or the California Constitution.

At Stanford, the Fundamental Standard requires all students to show “such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens.” In 1990, however, the Student Conduct Legislative Council interpreted that rule as governing not just conduct but also speech that was “intended to insult or stigmatize” on the basis of race, sex or other characteristics.

In Corry v. Leland Stanford Junior University, a California court ruled that this interpretation violated the Leonard Law. The court explained that although Stanford may regulate actual harassment or speech that provokes immediate violence, the First Amendment forbids punishing speech “because of the message it conveys.”

What the Law Says About Campus Free Speech

As faculty grapple with how to set a culture that maximizes learning, administrators must also ensure the university follows the law.

stanfordmag.org

This is another example I've read:

Private universities are not directly bound by the First Amendment, which limits only government action. However, the vast majority of private universities have traditionally viewed themselves—and sold themselves—as bastions of free thought and expression. Accordingly, private colleges and universities should be held to the standard that they themselves establish. If a private college advertises itself as a place where free speech is esteemed and protected—as most of them do—then it should be held to the same standard as a public institution.

Private Universities

When discussing free speech on campus, it is important to understand the relevance of the First Amendment to private and public institutions.

www.thefire.org

I don't know whether any states besides California have a law similar to the Leonard Law specifically addressing private universities and schools, though.

I don't agree with the fact that social media companies have no mandate to provide free speech, and often ironically end up propagating hate speech under the cover of free speech, but what can I do about it? It's a messy issue.

I also find that issue both messy and complicated. I can see significant usefulness in allowing social media companies to set their own terms of service so that they don't have to afford a platform to all and sundry when certain people can do measurable harm via social media, but I also think it opens a can of worms that the world's most popular and widely used social media companies can decide to ban or censor someone for views the owners of the company merely disapprove of (even if those are necessary to broadcast).

I think that tackling those conflicting issues may require new legislation, since they're issues emerging from technology that didn't exist when previous laws were written.

The post-9/11 silencing, as I call it, was terrible for the country. It kept people from asking questions that needed to be asked of the government and its policies. It led to a curtailing of civil rights due to the hastily passed "Patriot" Act, and led to two senseless, expensive, and tragic wars that achieved nothing in the end. But people felt good about it. War meant "we'll show *them*.

Yes, much of what surrounded and enabled the US' response to 9/11 was utterly horrendous. I'm just unsure how legislation aimed at private entities can minimize such silencing without also running the risk of having similarly harmful effects. The rise of certain inherently violent ideologies like neo-Nazism arguably has as much to do with what is allowed to be publicly promoted as what is censored, after all.

 

[Orbit]

Thanks. To what extent do students have First Amendment protection of speech? I'm asking because different sources I've read about this have stated that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private universities, although this Stanford Magazine article cites the Leonard Law in California as an extension of First Amendment rights to speech at universities:

What the Law Says About Campus Free Speech

As faculty grapple with how to set a culture that maximizes learning, administrators must also ensure the university follows the law.

stanfordmag.org

This is another example I've read:

Private Universities

When discussing free speech on campus, it is important to understand the relevance of the First Amendment to private and public institutions.

www.thefire.org

I don't know whether any states besides California have a law similar to the Leonard Law specifically addressing private universities and schools, though.



I also find that issue both messy and complicated. I can see significant usefulness in allowing social media companies to set their own terms of service so that they don't have to afford a platform to all and sundry when certain people can do measurable harm via social media, but I also think it opens a can of worms that the world's most popular and widely used social media companies can decide to ban or censor someone for views the owners of the company merely disapprove of (even if those are necessary to broadcast).

I think that tackling those conflicting issues may require new legislation, since they're issues emerging from technology that didn't exist when previous laws were written.



Yes, much of what surrounded and enabled the US' response to 9/11 was utterly horrendous. I'm just unsure how legislation aimed at private entities can minimize such silencing without also running the risk of having similarly harmful effects. The rise of certain inherently violent ideologies like neo-Nazism arguably has as much to do with what is allowed to be publicly promoted as what is censored, after all.

I went to college in California, so that probably colors my understanding of student free speech, from personal experience.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that free speech is a norm for students everywhere in the US, even if it's not technically a legal requirement for universities with private endowments. I don't count for-profit universities in that view, though (like University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University etc), because they are first and foremost corporations and didn't develop in the same academic culture as "traditional" universities. There is a strong culture that favors free speech for students in U.S. academic institutions, and courts tend to rule on the side of free speech principles when there is a dispute. Free speech is a central value in American culture.

It's the same thing as the norm of "academic freedom" for faculty, which is not codified in any law. Universities can be sued civilly for violating academic freedom, despite its absence in actual law. Organizations of faculty like the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) have their own processes for sanctioning universities who break this norm. This includes what amounts to public shaming, which hurts the affected university's ability to attract faculty who are wary because of the university's rating/censure. And there can be also civil lawsuits about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I went to college in California, so that probably colors my understanding of student free speech, from personal experience.

And mine. (For what it's worth, I was one of the many who participated in the Berkeley FSM sit-in.)

But free speech is not simply freedom of speech. It's also freedom of expression. It means, for example, being able to wear a BLM hoodie or LGBTQ+ merchandise without facing orchestrated intimidation. It includes being able to wear a hijab or kippah, or being able to march with a Palestinian or Israeli flag, without being physically attacked.

The bottom line is this: effective hate speech serves as a toxic assault on the right to free expression.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I went to college in California, so that probably colors my understanding of student free speech, from personal experience.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that free speech is a norm for students everywhere in the US, even if it's not technically a legal requirement for universities with private endowments. I don't count for-profit universities in that view, though (like University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University etc), because they are first and foremost corporations and didn't develop in the same academic culture as "traditional" universities. There is a strong culture that favors free speech for students in U.S. academic institutions, and courts tend to rule on the side of free speech principles when there is a dispute. Free speech is a central value in American culture.

It's the same thing as the norm of "academic freedom" for faculty, which is not codified in any law. Universities can be sued civilly for violating academic freedom, despite its absence in actual law. Organizations of faculty like the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) have their own processes for sanctioning universities who break this norm. This includes what amounts to public shaming, which hurts the affected university's ability to attract faculty who are wary because of the university's rating/censure. And there can be also civil lawsuits about it.

When it comes to public universities and both public and private ones bound by the Leonard Law, I fully agree that they are legally obliged to afford all viewpoints equal freedom of expression. The issue becomes more complicated and uncertain for me when it has to do with private universities.

I utterly despise the penalization of necessary and valid criticism of Israel that some private universities have exercised, but I also want to ensure that the basis on which I oppose it can't equally be used to argue for allowing the expression of white supremacist or anti-Palestinian rhetoric on the campuses of private universities.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I utterly despise the penalization of valid criticism of Israel that some private universities have exercised, ...

I may well agree with you, but I'd appreciate a recent example. Thanks.

 

[Stevicus]

This thread (by @Orbit) has had me thinking about censorship at private institutions and on private platforms and what the acceptable limits to that should be.

I believe that private entities should legally be able to allow or disallow speech within their premises or platforms, but I also believe that this could be abused to shut down necessary speech and criticism. I think the universities that have refused to invite certain far-right speakers were within their rights when they did so, but this cuts both ways: now the private universities that are censoring criticism of Israel are also within their legal rights unless they violate other laws (i.e., ones unrelated to free speech) in the process. As dangerous and harmful as I find their actions to be, I don't see a sound legal argument to compel private entities to allow speech within their premises that they don't wish to allow beyond a basic, specific baseline.

Is censorship on private premises or within the facilities provided by private entities a free speech issue, then, or should individual instances thereof be assessed separately primarily based on their moral and intellectual ramifications—among other factors—rather than on whether or not they adhere to principles of free speech?

I generally lean toward the former. If I argue that private entities shouldn't be allowed to censor speech on their own premises or within their own facilities, I'm effectively saying that owners of private entities should be obliged to allow a white supremacist, ideological extremist, or blatant homophobe to copiously promote hatred and discord within said entities' facilities without repercussions. A consequence of this is that I must accept the legal right to private censorship even when I find some instances of practicing it to be utterly reprehensible and harmful. I can and will continue to criticize certain universities' actions as such, but that is mainly because of the deleterious humanitarian, ethical, and social consequences of their actions, not mainly because of any argument about free speech or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to point out the inconsistency of some people's positions when they denounce private censorship of certain speech as an "attack on free speech" but readily embrace or ignore it when the target of the censorship is speech they disapprove of or disagree with. As I said, I believe acceptance of private entities' legal right to censorship cuts both ways—it seems to me the lesser evil compared to forcing private entities to allow all speech within their facilities. For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

What are your thoughts?

Overall, I tend to be a staunch supporter of free speech and freedom of expression. However, I'm also aware of its limitations, particularly when it comes to private entities. Even before the internet, people realized that if a newspaper didn't print my letter to the editor, it was their right. Just as I have the right to print up my own leaflets and hand them out. If I submit a manuscript to a book publisher, they have no legal or constitutional obligation to accept it.

When it comes to public speeches such as at universities, that can be tricky, I suppose. I'd like to think of universities as wanting to be supportive of intellectual freedom, so if someone wants to give a speech, even if it's controversial, then maybe some people might want to hear it. Of course, it's reasonable to impose a few rules, at least so it can be more productive and useful. There's nothing about the principles of free speech which should imply anarchy or some kind of cacophonous chorus of chaos. (Although that might be a good name for a web forum or a social media platform.)

I remember some of the Usenet newsgroups, a few of which were unmoderated free-for-alls, which usually end up self-destructing on their own.

I do agree with your point about Elon Musk and X, although overall, a lot of forums and platforms started out inviting people to sign up and join and participate in chatrooms and discussion boards. It's not really the same thing as a newspaper soliciting letters to the editor, since one had to actually mail the letter in and check to see if they print it or not. With the internet, it's posted instantaneously, at least in most cases. Of course, it could get deleted later on or problem posters could get banned - which is the point where some might complain of censorship or violation of free speech.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I may well agree with you, but I'd appreciate a recent example. Thanks.

Columbia University comes to mind (although I should note that I haven't yet read a great deal about the records of the groups involved in that situation):

Columbia suspended the groups last week, saying they had violated university policy. The university did not elaborate on how exactly the groups did that except to say they had held “unauthorized” events that included unspecified “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.”

Following their suspension, the groups released a joint statement on Instagram, accusing the university of “selective censorship” of pro-Palestinian groups and calling the move “an attack on free speech to distract from and enable Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people.”

Columbia Faces Protests After Suspending 2 Pro-Palestinian Groups

Students rallied after the university barred two groups from holding campus events until the end of the semester, and faculty members walked out in protest.

www.nytimes.com

What I find possibly more problematic, however, are some of the reactions of private entities that are not universities. This article delves into those:

‘The Palestine exception’: why pro-Palestinian voices are suppressed in the US

Americans are being fired and facing threats for speaking out. Lawyers fear it will get worse – but they are ready to defend against the onslaught

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Debater Slayer :

FWIW, I agree with both observations.