3 ms·

I would really like to see if a moral position like that could still stand tall. I'd be surprised if they could defend Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter account witho

by Pigo 10y ago

I would really like to see if a moral position like that could still stand tall. I'd be surprised if they could defend Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter account without massive protests and everyone losing their job.

CPLX 10y ago
There are literally zero constitutional issues raised by the nature of his relationship with Twitter.
- lol214365 10y ago
  There are no constitutional issues raised by the border wall, and yet the ACLU is opposed to that.
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
    The parts of the border wall built by President Bush seized property from private citizens. Infamously, there is now a golf course in Texas that is now on the wrong side of the border. So, you have to subject yourself to search by CBP in order to go play golf despite not leaving your country. Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
- dwaxe 10y ago
  How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media.
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    > How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media. To be fair, most of the time I hear your complaint, the people complaining about the loss of free speech has nothing to do with the Constitution (though that isn't the case in this instance, of course). It's possible to oppose certain speech restrictions as damaging to a community you care about and to be upset when those restrictions arise. Not for constitutional reasons, but for reasons having to do with the health and ethical grounding of a community. Though this is just my sample: It's of course possible that we are exposed to very different circles and that you're more often exposed to "Reddit can't ban this subreddit! It's unconstitutional!". If so, I'm sorry, that must blow
  - base698 10y ago
    Maybe it shouldn't be: "... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." --John Stuart Mill
    - phil21 10y ago
      Pretty much exactly this. If you don't have a practical right to exercise free speech, you effectively have lost the right in it's entirety.

by Pigo 10y ago

CPLX 10y ago

There are literally zero constitutional issues raised by the nature of his relationship with Twitter.

lol214365 10y ago
There are no constitutional issues raised by the border wall, and yet the ACLU is opposed to that.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  The parts of the border wall built by President Bush seized property from private citizens. Infamously, there is now a golf course in Texas that is now on the wrong side of the border. So, you have to subject yourself to search by CBP in order to go play golf despite not leaving your country. Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
dwaxe 10y ago
How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > How do people still not get this? The First Amendment is a limitation on the government of the United States. Period. It does not apply to other countries. It does not apply to private entities within the United States. It does not apply to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any other social media. To be fair, most of the time I hear your complaint, the people complaining about the loss of free speech has nothing to do with the Constitution (though that isn't the case in this instance, of course). It's possible to oppose certain speech restrictions as damaging to a community you care about and to be upset when those restrictions arise. Not for constitutional reasons, but for reasons having to do with the health and ethical grounding of a community. Though this is just my sample: It's of course possible that we are exposed to very different circles and that you're more often exposed to "Reddit can't ban this subreddit! It's unconstitutional!". If so, I'm sorry, that must blow
- base698 10y ago
  Maybe it shouldn't be: "... a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." --John Stuart Mill
  - phil21 10y ago
    Pretty much exactly this. If you don't have a practical right to exercise free speech, you effectively have lost the right in it's entirety.