• Home
  • About
    • About Christopher di Armani
    • Disclosure Statement
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Gun Laws 101
  • FPO Violators
  • Store
  • Donate
  • Hire Me

Christopher di Armani.com

In Praise of Individual Rights and Freedoms

  • Top 25
  • Big Brother
    • Access To Information
    • Bureaucratic Incompetence
    • Bureaucrat’s Rule #1
    • Censorship
    • Feeding at the Government Trough
    • Lemonade Freedom
  • Common Sense
    • Expressions of Gratitude
    • Good Samaritans
    • Good Stuff
    • In Memoriam — Remembering our Heros
    • Life
    • Personal Responsibility
    • Politically Correct Madness
  • Courts
    • Abusive Prosecutions
    • Civil Forfeiture
    • Human Rights Tribunals
    • Judicial Corruption
    • Justice Denied
    • Justice System Abuses
    • Police Sentencing Double-Standards
    • Prosecutorial Misconduct
    • SLAPP Lawsuits
  • Crime
    • Abuse of Trust
    • Canadian Mass Murders
    • Firearm Prohibition Orders
    • Human Depravity
    • Immigration Issues
    • Racism
    • Restraining Orders
    • Sexual Predators
    • Violent Criminals
    • Wrongful Convictions
  • Guns
    • Concealed Carry
    • Dial 9-1-1 and Die
    • Firearms Act
    • Fun Gun Stuff
    • Gun Control
    • Gun-Free Zones
    • Gun Politics
    • Gun Registration
    • Negligent Discharges
    • Target Shooting Competitions
  • Islam
    • Canadian Islamic Disgraces
    • Islamic Terrorism
    • Radical Islam
    • Sharia Law
    • The Religion Of Peace
  • Police
    • Abuse of Police Authority
    • Filming Police
    • Great Police Officers
    • Officer Down
    • Police Brutality
    • Police Corruption
    • Police Misconduct
    • RCMP Accountability
    • RCMP Hall of Shame
    • Warrantless Searches
  • Politics
    • Elections
    • Ethics in Politics
    • Political Antics
    • Political Corruption
    • Social Justice
    • Stupid Human Tricks
    • Union Bay Improvement District
  • Rights
    • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    • Constitutional Violations
    • Freedom of Assembly
    • Freedom of Religion
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Property Rights
    • Privacy Rights
    • Self-Defense
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Free Speech – Does It Mean What You Think?

Published February 28, 2020 by Christopher di Armani Filed Under: Freedom of Speech, Rights


What does “Free Speech” mean? Not what a lot of people think it does, unfortunately.

This column is sparked by a comment published on ChristopherDiArmani.com earlier this month and the US Court of Appeals decision, Prager University vs. YouTube, delivered on February 26, 2020.

“Hey. I dont agree with your post but i will defend your right to post it. I would expect you would support my right to disagree. Thats freedom. Btw. Good fir you for posting your thoughts”

This person meant well – lack of spelling, punctuation and grammar aside.

I thoroughly support their right to disagree. My support of their right to disagree does not obligate me to publish their disagreement on my website. (Although I did, in this case.)

This individual’s comprehension of the principle of “free speech” is distorted, as is their idea of what the principle means and what it defends.

If you choose to comment on what I write, your decision to share your thoughts does not obligate me to publish them. This is not an infringement on your right to free speech. You have no legal or moral claim over the content of this website, nor should you.

The only person who has a “right” to post their thoughts on this website is me. I own it. I pay all the costs to maintain it, making ChristopherDiArmani.com, in effect, my “house.”

If you disagree with my fundamental right of ownership, you are free to create your own website and post your thoughts there as often as you like. You are likewise free to reject any comments I may choose to leave there. This is your right as the owner of your house.

I side with Facebook, Twitter and every other social media platform against complaints they are shutting down or in some way restricting freedom of speech. They may well be doing so in one sense, but their actions have nothing to do with violating our right to freedom of speech but with their right of ownership.

These social media platforms are the property of their founders, not those of us who use them for free. Platform creators own “the house” they graciously allow us to visit. Ownership gives them the absolute right to allow or restrict anyone they choose from speaking on those platforms.

I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept it.

If I disagree with the house rules I’m free to create a new house and compete in the open marketplace of ideas. If my moustrap is better, I win and gain readers and subscribers and I may choose to allow them to speak freely or not, as I see fit – just like Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms do today.

PragerU, a conservative media company, sued YouTube.com in 2017, claiming the video sharing platform unlawfully censored its educational videos and discriminated against PragerU’s right to freedom of speech. Their lawsuit was dismissed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, just as it was at the lower court level.

From that decision:

Addressing the First Amendment claims, the panel held that despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public- facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. The panel noted that just last year, the Supreme Court held that ‘merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.’ Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019).

The panel held that the Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment. The panel therefore rejected plaintiff’s assertion that YouTube is a state actor because it performs a public function.

PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government — not a private party — from abridging speech.

The Canadian equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2b. The analysis of its limitations (below) roughly echoes the decision of the US Court of Appeals in Prager University vs. YouTube.

Section 2(b) protection does not extend to all places. Private property, for example, will fall outside the protected sphere of section 2(b) absent state-imposed limits on expression, since state action is necessary to implicate the Charter.

The principle of free speech is a protection from government’s attempts to restrict what we say. It does not, nor was it ever intended to restrict what you say in someone else’s home, be it a physical home or a virtual one, like this blog or social media platforms like YouTube, Facebook or Twitter.

 

This is a hot-button issue. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Author

  • Christopher di Armani
    Christopher di Armani

    Christopher di Armani is a freedom-loving Amazon bestselling author and current events commentator from Lytton, BC, Canada, who strives to awaken the passion for liberty inside every human being.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2b, first amendment, free speech, Internet Censorship, Prager University vs. YouTube

Did you find value in this article?

If you found this article useful or it contained valuable information and you want to thank me, the best way is to buy me a coffee or two.

1. Send an Interac eTransfer to author @ christopherdiarmani.net (remove spaces)

2. Send via PayPal using this link: https://www.paypal.me/ThatLibertyGuy

3. Use your credit card in my online store to support me with a one-time donation, a monthly recurring donation, or an annual donation. See these links for all the details about the thank-you gifts I offer my supporters.

Comments

  1. S says

    February 28, 2020 at 11:14 am

    Since i am the person that posted that comment, i would like to comment again. (Puncuation Spelling Grammar aside)

    One of the reasons why the punctuation spelling and grammar aren’t perfect is one I’m not a writer and two I have to type on my shitty little phone which I can’t see very well

    If you don’t mind I would like you to tell me what you think the limitations out to be for free speech.

    To let you know, I believe that yelling fire in a crowded theatre would be a good example of the type of limitation to free speech I support

    Thank you and all the best

    Reply
    • Christopher di Armani says

      February 28, 2020 at 12:29 pm

      Nobody disagrees that yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a reasonable limitation on free speech.

      Reply
  2. RCEME says

    February 28, 2020 at 11:22 am

    Hello Christopher, Thank you for all the insightful articles. Free thought like free speech should not be infringed on. It would appear that people have forgotten that there is a switch on there electronics called the “On & Off”. It would seem that the validity of a subject is in proportion to the attention it gets and by the direction of social attitude of the day. We have a choice and need to understand that open dialog is not one sided. I agree with your comment pertaining to your ownership of your content. Why should you do all the hard lifting while couch commandos slug their opinions at you. Yes I am writing this from my couch, oh irony. I to have terrible writing skills and spelling was never a strong suit. To much info and so little RAM. The rambling of a military veteran trying not to offend or trigger anyone.

    Reply
    • Christopher di Armani says

      February 28, 2020 at 12:30 pm

      Thank you for your kind words, sir, and for the good laugh re: the irony. Have a great day and offend away. 🙂

      Reply
  3. Joe says

    February 28, 2020 at 12:47 pm

    well if you do deem my comment acceptable for you to post it… 🙂
    I agree with you re your site, youtube, twatter, facebook,etc.. What I do not agree with is CBC (partly MY house funded by my tax dollars) being allowed to censor my comments.
    Also, hate speech is absolutely the ‘free speech’ that is to be protected because speech that everyone agrees with does not need ‘protecting’, controversial opinions do.

    Reply
    • Christopher di Armani says

      February 28, 2020 at 1:11 pm

      Precisely. Popular opinions don’t need protection.
      Well said, Joe.

      Reply
    • RCEME says

      March 2, 2020 at 12:46 pm

      Do you mean the Communist Broadcasting Cartel? Hate speech is not always obvious as media has spewed a one sided agenda for years now. To influence the populace through one sided reporting could also be construed as hate speech. But fear not it is Government sanctioned through tax dollars so how can that be bad?….right. So many examples!

      Reply
    • Andrey Piskunov says

      March 14, 2020 at 10:27 am

      Well, “hate speech” legislation does precisely this: it bends what “everybody agrees with”, it’s a toll. And it’s a placeholder when they want to get you but nothing else works. “Hate speech” doesn’t have to be necessarily you saying or writing something, if I’m not mistaken, it can even be a web article saved on your PC or any other file…

      Reply
  4. GerryK. says

    February 29, 2020 at 2:00 pm

    As I go through life and living, I try to not offend people, and be respectful of everybody’s space. That said, I will not censor my thoughts, speech, and actions, to comfort ignorance, feelings, or sensitivities! There is so much demanded “Group think” out there. Attempts to control others with likeminded peer pressure through twitter and facebook etcetera. I deliberately choose to not use those anti soc, er sorry, social networks, that also appear to censor postings the gatekeepers of these networks deem “Offensive”. Without free exchange of thoughts and dialog, we will never move our society forward. The majority of us that have signed on to the larger social contracts of law and order and good government (no pun intended) as we try to get along with one another for the greater good of all, need to stand tall for their belief’s and convictions, and not wither into the shadows, when SJW’s use their groupthink to suppress those they disagree with!

    Reply
    • RCEME says

      March 2, 2020 at 12:52 pm

      No worries Gerry there is a plan in the works to ensure we all feel, act and conform to the same master. No I am not a nut I just see a trend and the trend is in one direction the direction of compliance. Remember Democracy is the illusion of freedom.

      Cheers

      Reply
  5. John Gilmour says

    March 3, 2020 at 7:53 am

    Reading this, the thought occurs to me that it might be possible that the courts might view these social media platforms, in some cases, like they have done with the cable and phone companies. Yes they are private platforms but because of their overwhelming control of public communications, they can and are regulated and forced to cary wide content of other than their own.

    Just thinking out loud.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Free Speech: Tulsi Gabbard, Google and the First Amendment | Christopher di Armani.com says:
    March 9, 2020 at 4:47 am

    […] aspirants, but when ambition clouds good judgment it becomes a problem, as I explained in my ecent commentary about free speech and Prager […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to my commentaries

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Latest Tweets

Follow @ThatLibertyGuy

Christopher di Armani 🇨🇦 🇺🇸
@ThatLibertyGuy

  • New comment: Edmonton Police Service Constable Adam Kube Refused Any Appeal In His Termination for Corrupt Practices christopherdiarmani.com/10846/police/p…
    about 3 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • A big shout out to @CandiceMalcolm, @AndrewLawton, @AnthonyFurey and the entire team at @TrueNorthCentre for sendin… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 4 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 1 month ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: Paul Rogan Passes: The End of an Era christopherdiarmani.com/18908/common-s…
    about 2 months ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • To restore common sense to our nation, this is the path. The political left works around the clock and around the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 2 months ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite

Most Popular This Week

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • No Right to Bear Arms in Canada? You might want to re-check your history.
  • A Historic Day for Freedom of Speech: Geert Wilders
  • The National Anthem BANNED… at Indiana’s Goshen College?
  • Thank God for Andrew Abbass and his Lawyer
  • Paul Palango: One Man’s Pursuit of the Truth Could be the RCMP’s Undoing
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer

Most Popular This Month

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer
  • OPP Sgt. Mike Dolderman’s Sexual Assault Trial Delayed Again
  • How did Live-Streaming Rape Become a ‘Thing’?
  • Dale Merle Nelson’s 1970 Murder Spree in Creston, British Columbia
  • OPP Sergeant Jamie Gillespie Pleads Guilty to attempting to intercept private communications
  • Escaped Mental Patient William Bernard Lepine and the 1972 Kettle Valley Murders

© 2004–2023 ChristopherDiArmani.com | All Rights Reserved

Close

Buy me a cup of coffee

A ridiculous amount of coffee was consumed in the process of writing these articles. If you enjoy my work, please buy me a coffee or two to keep me going!