4 ms·

Yet another guy who thinks he's a government entity. Refusing to do business with someone isn't censorship, _it's speech_. No-one's campaigning to remove Breitb

by moomin 9y ago

Yet another guy who thinks he's a government entity. Refusing to do business with someone isn't censorship, _it's speech_. No-one's campaigning to remove Breitbart's license to do business, they're just saying Shopify shouldn't be doing business with them. If a guy says offensive stuff in a bar and keeps starting fights, sooner or later you'll have two groups of people. The ones who don't want to hang around with him any more, and the ones who are okay with his behaviour. All of which, frankly, is pretty much covered by the obvious XKCD comic. And yeah, there's plenty of grey in the world. But I'll let you in on a secret: even the grey stuff doesn't like Breitbart.

shkkmo 9y ago
>Yet another guy who thinks he's a government entity Free Speech is more than just a legal right, it is an important social institution. We impose stricter controls on government entities than we do on business entities, but that doesn't mean that business entities don't have huge effects of the freeness of speech in our culture. >Refusing to do business with someone isn't censorship, _it's speech_. It is censorship and it is also speech. Some types of this speech are not legal, for example: Refusing to do business with someone based on their race is illegal. It's not entirely clear to me that we as a society have thought through the consequences of making political discrimination wholey legal. Do we allow businesses to blacklist customers based on political affiliation? Do we allow businesses to blacklist customers who support abortion or gay marriage? Do we allow employers to fire you if you don't agree with them politically? > No-one's campaigning to remove Breitbart's license to do business You are campaigning to compel Shopify to say what you want and in doing so impinge on the speech of another. This assaults not just Breitbart's freedom of speech, but also Shopify's. While legal, this is also directly harmful the freeness of speech in our society.
- moomin 9y ago
  I think you're confusing campaigning with saying, and compulsion with ostracism. You're not talking about free speech, you're talking about freedom from consequences. If you truly believe all political speech should be considered equal, I suggest you upvote this comment. And yes, some forms of speech can be used to close down other speech. Online harassment is an obvious example but I seriously doubt it's what you had in mind. Incidentally, the answer to your above questions is: in many states, actually, they do. If that's something that concerns you, maybe campaign to make that illegal.

by moomin 9y ago

shkkmo 9y ago

>Yet another guy who thinks he's a government entity Free Speech is more than just a legal right, it is an important social institution. We impose stricter controls on government entities than we do on business entities, but that doesn't mean that business entities don't have huge effects of the freeness of speech in our culture. >Refusing to do business with someone isn't censorship, _it's speech_. It is censorship and it is also speech. Some types of this speech are not legal, for example: Refusing to do business with someone based on their race is illegal. It's not entirely clear to me that we as a society have thought through the consequences of making political discrimination wholey legal. Do we allow businesses to blacklist customers based on political affiliation? Do we allow businesses to blacklist customers who support abortion or gay marriage? Do we allow employers to fire you if you don't agree with them politically? > No-one's campaigning to remove Breitbart's license to do business You are campaigning to compel Shopify to say what you want and in doing so impinge on the speech of another. This assaults not just Breitbart's freedom of speech, but also Shopify's. While legal, this is also directly harmful the freeness of speech in our society.

moomin 9y ago
I think you're confusing campaigning with saying, and compulsion with ostracism. You're not talking about free speech, you're talking about freedom from consequences. If you truly believe all political speech should be considered equal, I suggest you upvote this comment. And yes, some forms of speech can be used to close down other speech. Online harassment is an obvious example but I seriously doubt it's what you had in mind. Incidentally, the answer to your above questions is: in many states, actually, they do. If that's something that concerns you, maybe campaign to make that illegal.