4 ms·

Yes! That's the point of free speech - private entities can accept and reject ideas they like or dislike. The founders knew this, and they omitted any mention o

Yes! That's the point of free speech - private entities can accept and reject ideas they like or dislike. The founders knew this, and they omitted any mention of private entities in the first amendment: The text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It says nothing about private entities regulating private platforms and that's on purpose - free speech means nothing without the private means to accept or reject it. I feel that most of this confusion stems from people who live in different countries conflating their free speech laws with our own. In the United States, the government cannot regulate speech on the basis of its content, and this has always been the case. In the United States, private entities are free to regulate speech on private platforms, and this has also been the case since day 1 of the republic. This is nothing new for us Americans, and nothing particularly scary!

Clubber 9y ago
There is no confusion. I understand the constitution only protects free speech from itself, but that doesn't mean we should welcome when private entities censor. In other words, because it isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly won't give them kudos for it. I'm not arguing the legality of it, you are and I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because you support this type of censorship.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You call it censorship, we call it the right to free association. A business shouldn't have to do business with Nazis if it doesn't want to.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Again, a straw man. I never said the government should force it. Do you support google's censorship? I mean what if they decided a liberal website was over the top and blocked their registration. Or an independent site critical of both Democrats and Republicans because they propose the entire system is corrupt? It works both (all three) ways.
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      You're making a slippery slope argument that I'm not finding at all convincing. The only domain name transfer that Google has refused, to my knowledge anyway, is this one. The Daily Stormer. A bunch of racist Nazis. It's a long leap from there to imagine Google refusing domain name registrations for mainstream political parties that fully half of the country subscribes to. I don't see it happening.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        Oh my goodness, loss of liberty is a death from a thousand cuts. Do you think the PATRIOT act will ever be fully expired or repealed? No way. Do you think the NSA will ever be barred from collecting data on US citizens? Hell no. Those are liberties we've lost forever, and not just us, but our children and our children's children, in the last 20 years, because of complacency. Think of all the rights because of the drug war that will never end. We will lose plenty of others. It's a constant assault. Can you even think of one government protected right we've gained in the last 20 years? Don't say pot, because we lost that right in the 1900s. As a citizen it is your duty to be diligent to protect your freedoms, for your self and future generations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we're well down it.
        CydeWeys 9y ago
        You are again derailing the conversation by bringing up government actions, which are explicitly different than companies having the freedom to choose who they wish to do business with. Stick to the topic at hand! Companies cannot be forced to offer domain name registration services to Nazis if they do not want to. Forcing them to is a greater violation of liberty than allowing them the choice not to associate with Nazis.
        Clubber 9y ago
        No one said force but you. I am complaining about a problem and you are offering a solution, associating it with me, then criticizing it. Believe it or not, there is more than one way to solve a problem. My solution was to have a public option registrar.

Clubber 9y ago

There is no confusion. I understand the constitution only protects free speech from itself, but that doesn't mean we should welcome when private entities censor. In other words, because it isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly won't give them kudos for it. I'm not arguing the legality of it, you are and I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because you support this type of censorship.

CydeWeys 9y ago
You call it censorship, we call it the right to free association. A business shouldn't have to do business with Nazis if it doesn't want to.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Again, a straw man. I never said the government should force it. Do you support google's censorship? I mean what if they decided a liberal website was over the top and blocked their registration. Or an independent site critical of both Democrats and Republicans because they propose the entire system is corrupt? It works both (all three) ways.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You're making a slippery slope argument that I'm not finding at all convincing. The only domain name transfer that Google has refused, to my knowledge anyway, is this one. The Daily Stormer. A bunch of racist Nazis. It's a long leap from there to imagine Google refusing domain name registrations for mainstream political parties that fully half of the country subscribes to. I don't see it happening.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      Oh my goodness, loss of liberty is a death from a thousand cuts. Do you think the PATRIOT act will ever be fully expired or repealed? No way. Do you think the NSA will ever be barred from collecting data on US citizens? Hell no. Those are liberties we've lost forever, and not just us, but our children and our children's children, in the last 20 years, because of complacency. Think of all the rights because of the drug war that will never end. We will lose plenty of others. It's a constant assault. Can you even think of one government protected right we've gained in the last 20 years? Don't say pot, because we lost that right in the 1900s. As a citizen it is your duty to be diligent to protect your freedoms, for your self and future generations. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we're well down it.
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        You are again derailing the conversation by bringing up government actions, which are explicitly different than companies having the freedom to choose who they wish to do business with. Stick to the topic at hand! Companies cannot be forced to offer domain name registration services to Nazis if they do not want to. Forcing them to is a greater violation of liberty than allowing them the choice not to associate with Nazis.
        Clubber 9y ago
        No one said force but you. I am complaining about a problem and you are offering a solution, associating it with me, then criticizing it. Believe it or not, there is more than one way to solve a problem. My solution was to have a public option registrar.