4 ms·

> Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free sp

> Choosing not to actively expend resources to relay speech is itself an exercise of free speech rights. Private deplatforming isn't oppression, it is free speech. Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now? The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). The irony of people calling themselves liberals trying to use it to put an aura of legitimacy over their behavior too is delicious.

ekiru 8y ago
> Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. See the double standard now? In fact, major social media sites such as Youtube and Twitter frequently ban or otherwise sanction queer people for talking about their sexuality or gender and approximately no one cares.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. Yes, it's the same excuse, but it's not the same facts. There is, in general, a difference between regulating who you will do business with and regulating the content of the speech you will engage in. > The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). I do remember Masterpiece Cakeshop, but I don't think you do, so CE it doesn't involve freedom in the a sense of a protected target group, but impermissible government animus toward religion in apply the existing protection of a protected group.

ekiru 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Yet if a business used that line to refuse service to a minority, a religious person or atheist, a pro-choice advocate, or a LGBT person (in a nation where these are not protected groups or in a time before those groups were protected), you'd be up in arms about it even though it's the exact same excuse. Yes, it's the same excuse, but it's not the same facts. There is, in general, a difference between regulating who you will do business with and regulating the content of the speech you will engage in. > The groups you oppose would absolutely love to be able to use that line of reasoning to defend themselves (remember the Colorado baker case?). I do remember Masterpiece Cakeshop, but I don't think you do, so CE it doesn't involve freedom in the a sense of a protected target group, but impermissible government animus toward religion in apply the existing protection of a protected group.