SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"We will not ban questionable subreddits," Reddit's then-CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote mere months ago. "You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create."
But in an apparent reversal of that policy, and in an unprecedented effort to clean up its long-suffering image, Reddit has just banned five "questionable subreddits."
The site permanently removed the forums Wednesday afternoon for harassing specific, named individuals, a spokesperson said. Of the five, two were dedicated to fat-shaming, one to transphobia, one to racism and one to harassing members of a progressive video game site.
Unsurprisingly, a vocal contingent of Redditors aren't taking the changes well: "Reddit increases censorship," read one post on r/freespeech, while forums like r/mensrights and r/opieandanthony theorized they would be next.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:17AM
The freedom of speech only applies to the government. If a business (or person) want to stop you from espousing your views on their website they are free to do so. If the government tries to stop you then you have a matter of law on your hands. There is no protected speech on this site, on Reddit, on Fark, or on any site.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @10:42AM
No it doesn't. FoS means the freedom to speak without fear of prosecution or retaliation over the expressed ideas.
If a business (or person) want to stop you from espousing your views on their website they are free to do so.
That doesn't mean they aren't violating FoS, merely that they aren't committing a crime.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Saturday June 13 2015, @09:49PM
You're confusing the concept of free expression, which is a philosophical position and ethical ideal, with the First Amendment to the US Constitution. When a government entity violates The First Amendment, a crime has been committed, as well as a moral outrage. When reddit starts banning speech they find offensive, they've not necessarily broken any laws, but they're slipping into an abyss of ethical decay. We've decided, as a society, not to criminalize all behavior that are merely unethical. It's not illegal to cheat on your wife*, for example, but you are not acting ethically. If you try to defend yourself by saying, "Hey, I'm not breaking any laws" you would be both factually correct and morally bankrupt.
People who fire back with the "it's only censorship when the government does it!" non-rebuttal miss the point entirely. reddit isn't breaking the law, they're just acting shitty.
*I believe it actually is a crime for members of the Military, but I'm not certain
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:08AM
I do not believe I am missing the point of free expression. I just do not feel that they have an obligation to provide it. Should they? I think so. It is not my site and I can not force my opinions on them. I can complain but that does nothing more than give them the power to control my emotions. Frankly, I would rather not cede that right to a bunch of pixels.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:09PM
adultery (cheating on your spouse) is illegal in most of the US, and you're correct that its a violation of the UCMJ (article 134); for officers they also get hit with article 133 (conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman).