> but there will always be a small handful of businesses who mistakenly think it’s a good idea to threaten consumers who exercise their free speech right
Wh... what? the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here.
Private businesses cannot with impunity use the courts to suppress free speech. This is why the majority of states have laws that attempt to combat such lawsuits. Essentially the majority of states do have a law preventing them from doing so.
This is cynnical of me, but I feel like in a way Yelp is catering to techies and others with the free speech angle, since it's kind of a very easy way to get a very large crowd on your side.
Technically speaking, you're right that the legal definition of Free Speech doesn't apply, but there's a moral principle of free speech which has been the subject of a lot of debate in recent years, with persons of varying political backgrounds and agendas arguing about whether abusive speech should be promoted as the poster-child for free speech. (though I'm hesitant to invoke any of this for fear of it exploding...stuff like the Twitter fights that people get into over things like misogyny, misandry, rape, social justice, etc)
Basically, like with a lot of topics online, there's a built in audience you gain access to if you say the right incantation; if you're not clear on what I mean, just look at any topic about the NSA or encryption on HN and look at some of the more popular comments; you'll get an idea of how by stating a stance, you can sometimes get new audiences.
The childish cynic in me thinks that this is what Yelp is doing, along with cementing their business model as free speech. Yelp has been guilty of extortion like practices in the past against businesses, and their users are equally obnoxious with restaurants at times. There was even a Southpark episode about it, so it was wide spread enough to be picked up offline. I honestly don't think Yelp really gives a rats ass about its users, it's just this sort of pro-consumer stuff is majorly beneficial to Yelp. There's no doubt in my mind that Yelp would gladly take the notice down if the price was right and the business did a bit of advertising for Yelp.
Not that I can prove that. This is all just a misanthropic rant on my part, and I am not trying to pass it off as anything else. But the point is that there's a lot more to "free speech" than the US legal definition right now.
Comments superficially like yours are sometimes true, but in this context what you're saying is not relevant. Yelp could delete reviews if they felt like it. However, the 1st amendment does protect both the consumers and Yelp from the businesses, because it also "covers repercussions" carried out by the government on behalf of anybody. The businesses have to prove libel, otherwise they can suck it up.
>the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here.
That's a provincial US view, constricting it to what the constitution says, etc.
In any case, it's inadequate for the era that we live in.
There's more to free speech and freedom of expression than avoiding "repercussions initiated by the government", especially these days where large private interests can be as large or larger than governments and equally powerful.
Even if the government is allowing you to speak up against some mogul in X Latin American country, if he has his people intimidating or even killing you, that's an attack on your "free speech".
In the same way, big business can stifle free speech, as can various churches, internet companies censoring stuff selectively, etc...
>In any case, it's inadequate for the era that we live in.
>There's more to free speech and freedom of expression than avoiding "repercussions initiated by the government", especially these days where large private interests can be as large or larger than governments and equally powerful.
This recent trend of people from the left encouraging infringement on speech by corporations been very shocking to me.
The judiciary is capable of awarding civil sanctions and damages to a private person - natural or artificial - even if those damages are on a claim on the basis of speech.
To create your version of reality, it would require a radical interpretation from the Supreme Court, or new and separate laws passed from Congress and every state and territory to limit the powers of the judicial branch.
As it stands there is no framework in this country to uphold your version of free speech. If you feel it is inadequate for the era that we live in, then sure, keep advocating for it. This has no bearing on the correctness of Yelp's pseudo-legal interpretation in their sounding board. They are equally within their right to censor their own forum, with their disproportional influence, but their rationale does not make it accurate.
Free speech encompasses any government action that limits your freedom of expression whether initiated by the government or carried out by the government on behalf of another party.
In effect the government cannot act to limit your freedom of speech without a very narrowly defined compelling reason I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.
Further frivolous lawsuits as a threat to free speech are so commonly understood we have an acronym for it
SLAPP: A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
Lawsuits are absolutely governed by the constitution. You are using the force of the government to bring about your will. So the first amendment absolutely factors into how a speech related lawsuit plays out.
The judiciary is capable of awarding civil sanctions and damages to a private person - natural or artificial - even if those damages are on a claim on the basis of speech.
To create your version of reality, it would require a radical interpretation from the Supreme Court, or a new and separate laws passed from Congress and every state and territory to limit the powers of the judicial branch.
As it stands there is no framework in this country to uphold your version of free speech. If you feel it is inadequate for the era that we live in, then sure, keep advocating for it. This has no bearing on the correctness of Yelp's pseudo-legal interpretation in their sounding board. They are equally within their right to censor their own forum, with their disproportional influence, but their rationale does not make it accurate.
> the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government.
No, because freedom of speech and expression is a concept central to Western culture. The First Amendment is just one specific implementation of guaranteeing that freedom as it relates to the US government.
Wh... what? the free speech right only covers repercussions initiated by the government. Businesses are not the government so consumers have no free speech right or expectation here.
reply