3 ms·

> More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no pa

> More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no part of it. >The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. Morals differ between organizations and individuals (just ask any church, the supposed arbiters of morals). Morals are relative to groups and individuals because they are created without/despite the input of other groups and individuals. If there were an absolute moral authority (which would obviate the need for other sets of morals) then perhaps this might be different. All of this to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. His followers may feel differently, but to Hell with them, too.

jessriedel 8y ago
> Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no part of it. You misunderstand. The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's suppression or speech with the acceptability/morality of that suppression. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech. > Morals differ between organizations and individuals People believe different things about empirical facts, but we don't think those difference of opinion mean there isn't a fact-of-the-matter which is separate from those opinions. If you want to argue for moral relativism you need to argue for the non-existence of moral facts, which is fine and a reasonably popular position among some philosophers. But it's hard to convince anyone to listen to any of your arguments about what should be done, in this case or any other, if you admit it's just a personal opinion (like a preference for strawberries over blueberries) and you don't actually think they have any moral imperative to listen to you.
- drivingmenuts 8y ago
  > The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's speech suppression with it's acceptability. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech. Well, then, to clarify on my part, I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Apple really only has the power that it has convinced consumers and shareholders to willingly given it (begrudgingly or not), aside from whatever power is granted by incorporation. I don't have to agree with their decision (in this case, I do). If they were to drop some musical artist I really like (say, Peter Gabriel) I would probably feel differently, but that wouldn't make me any more right, just mad.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    > It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Again: the fact that something is legal doesn't make it moral. > I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. You haven't actually engaged with my argument about the morality of this action, just stated you believe the opposite.

jessriedel 8y ago

> Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no part of it. You misunderstand. The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's suppression or speech with the acceptability/morality of that suppression. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech. > Morals differ between organizations and individuals People believe different things about empirical facts, but we don't think those difference of opinion mean there isn't a fact-of-the-matter which is separate from those opinions. If you want to argue for moral relativism you need to argue for the non-existence of moral facts, which is fine and a reasonably popular position among some philosophers. But it's hard to convince anyone to listen to any of your arguments about what should be done, in this case or any other, if you admit it's just a personal opinion (like a preference for strawberries over blueberries) and you don't actually think they have any moral imperative to listen to you.

drivingmenuts 8y ago
> The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's speech suppression with it's acceptability. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech. Well, then, to clarify on my part, I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Apple really only has the power that it has convinced consumers and shareholders to willingly given it (begrudgingly or not), aside from whatever power is granted by incorporation. I don't have to agree with their decision (in this case, I do). If they were to drop some musical artist I really like (say, Peter Gabriel) I would probably feel differently, but that wouldn't make me any more right, just mad.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Again: the fact that something is legal doesn't make it moral. > I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. You haven't actually engaged with my argument about the morality of this action, just stated you believe the opposite.