4 ms·

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the st

But that was the state stopping Nazis from marching, this is a private company refusing to do business with someone. Free speech is a right guaranteed by the state, so you won't go to prison for stating your beliefs. But no one should be obliged to help you air those beliefs against their will.

melling 9y ago
I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.
  - melling 9y ago
    "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      I do not believe in free expression to promote/commit violence.
  - splintercell 9y ago
    I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. I do not believe nazi's or any other group have any right to promote hate and violence against others.
      - Chaebixi 9y ago
        > I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. > right to promote You just did. Promotion is speech.
        24gttghh 9y ago
        I am sorry you think the ability to promote hate is something worth defending.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    Choice vs born-with-it isn't a valid reason. If science discovered a way to change your sexuality, would you be OK discriminating against gays after-all? Religion is also protected and nobody is born with a particular religion. Country of birth is something that people are born with but we heavily discriminate against that - a Syrian can't just get the plane to America and go set up home there. You Americans will almost unanimously agree to stop him for no other reason than an accident of birth.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      Nice strawman. We should be able to discriminate against those who seek to discriminate in the ultimate (ie deny nazi's/violent religious extremists/radical communists/etc a platform to promote discrimination/violence).
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.
- cleansy 9y ago
  IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you. Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.
  - ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
    Not really. The Federal Civil Rights Act only prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual Orientation was never included in the legislation, though some states do have legislation with respect to sexual orientation and political affiliation. California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on sexual orientation or political affiliation. As detestable as they are one could easily argue that the Neo-Nazis are a political group and should be afforded equal protection. As a side note, the Bakery case is being looked at by the Supreme Court, in terms of whether or not you can force an artist to make something they don't want to.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      > California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on...political affiliation. Cite please, I genuinely curious.
- bjl 9y ago
  Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a Nazi is not. This difference isn't hard to understand.
moron4hire 9y ago
When private companies obtain near-monopoly status, they become a significant danger to the public interest and the government rightly scrutinizes their every move. I still think WalMart should have been compelled to stop altering music CDs in the 90s. And I still think any "too big to fail" company should be broken up under antitrust proceedings. This wouldn't be a problem without the Citizens United ruling. Corporations should not be considered people, especially when doing so comes to the harm of real people.
- celticninja 9y ago
  So now it becomes a regulatory issues, ie should they be regulated and treated like utilities in that access should be available to all regardless of race, wealth or political persuasion.

melling 9y ago

I think the article sums up the problem quite well: "Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world." Can I refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage? You can always go somewhere else.

24gttghh 9y ago
Can we please stop comparing treatment of gays and treatment of nazi's like they're some kind of equivalent? Gay people from most accounts were born that way, and just want to remain being alive and gay. Nazi's should be given no safe harbor, as they want to opress and/or kill gay people along with everyone else who don't want nazi's to have power.
- melling 9y ago
  "If we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I do not believe in free expression to promote/commit violence.
- splintercell 9y ago
  I don't think you understand 'freedom of speech', when you start saying 'I believe in freedom of speech for only X kind of speech, because the other kind abhorrent'.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. I do not believe nazi's or any other group have any right to promote hate and violence against others.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      > I didn't say anything about freedom of speech. > right to promote You just did. Promotion is speech.
      - 24gttghh 9y ago
        I am sorry you think the ability to promote hate is something worth defending.
- averagewall 9y ago
  Choice vs born-with-it isn't a valid reason. If science discovered a way to change your sexuality, would you be OK discriminating against gays after-all? Religion is also protected and nobody is born with a particular religion. Country of birth is something that people are born with but we heavily discriminate against that - a Syrian can't just get the plane to America and go set up home there. You Americans will almost unanimously agree to stop him for no other reason than an accident of birth.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Nice strawman. We should be able to discriminate against those who seek to discriminate in the ultimate (ie deny nazi's/violent religious extremists/radical communists/etc a platform to promote discrimination/violence).

ZoeZoeBee 9y ago

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.

cleansy 9y ago
IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you. Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  Not really. The Federal Civil Rights Act only prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual Orientation was never included in the legislation, though some states do have legislation with respect to sexual orientation and political affiliation. California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on sexual orientation or political affiliation. As detestable as they are one could easily argue that the Neo-Nazis are a political group and should be afforded equal protection. As a side note, the Bakery case is being looked at by the Supreme Court, in terms of whether or not you can force an artist to make something they don't want to.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on...political affiliation. Cite please, I genuinely curious.
bjl 9y ago
Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a Nazi is not. This difference isn't hard to understand.

moron4hire 9y ago

When private companies obtain near-monopoly status, they become a significant danger to the public interest and the government rightly scrutinizes their every move. I still think WalMart should have been compelled to stop altering music CDs in the 90s. And I still think any "too big to fail" company should be broken up under antitrust proceedings. This wouldn't be a problem without the Citizens United ruling. Corporations should not be considered people, especially when doing so comes to the harm of real people.

celticninja 9y ago
So now it becomes a regulatory issues, ie should they be regulated and treated like utilities in that access should be available to all regardless of race, wealth or political persuasion.