6 ms·
People doesn't realize that all this will effect them. Ya, scapegoat the guy who everyone thinks deserves it. But, then it's on to the people who might deserve
by zuttton 8y ago
People doesn't realize that all this will effect them. Ya, scapegoat the guy who everyone thinks deserves it. But, then it's on to the people who might deserve it. Then, they come knocking on your door and you question how. It's happening right now in front of your eyes. I would be very scared at what is to come from letting these massive corporations exercise this kind of mass banning power.
- empath75 8y agoSo you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible? Nobody is putting him in jail. He’s free to speak his noxious views. And other people are not obligated to publish or advertise on them.
- bdcravens 8y agoAs long as it's not a wedding cake, right?
- code_duck 8y agoYeah, you have to not violate federal law, which is the same reason people who sell glass pipes get banned from PayPal.
- orf 8y agoAre you saying spreading hate speech a protected class now?
- andybak 8y agoWhilst I probably would find no common ground with the person you're responding to (I'm pro-lgbtq in general and always have been) I do think there's a nuance here worth engaging with.
- bdcravens 8y agoDidn't say that at all. Only addressing this statement: "So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible?"
- woodruffw 8y agoI think there's a substantial moral difference between (1) a business discriminating against members of a sexual minority, and (2) a business discriminating against a dogwhistling conspiracy theorist.
- bdcravens 8y agoI agree. I also would say that allowing a company to make decisions based on moral relativism is an even more slippery slope than we're already on.
- woodruffw 8y agoWhere's the relativism?
- sheepmullet 8y ago> I think there's a substantial moral difference between Yes, a moral difference clearly in favor of the conspiracy theorist. 1) A cake is not as important as speech. 2) The gay couple had many other alternative options. 3) There was no shadowy group working to ensure that nobody would bake a cake for the gay couple. There is a clear group setting out to unperson Alex Jones.
- camel_Snake 8y agoI don't feel like you're arguing in good faith here. The issue wasn't what they were purchasing but rather the reason they were refused service - their sexuality. If Alex Jones had been deplatformed because he was gay then you can bet you're ass we'd be mad. If the couple was denied service because they were known to say controversial things in public and the bakery didn't want to be associated with that I'd have no issue with that either. By 'free speech' I assume you mean the universal idea that we should be able to express ourselves rather than protection from the government. I'm going to presume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe businesses 'are people too' and should have analogous rights. What about the business' "freedom of speech"?
- behringer 8y agoConspiracy theorists who torment the suffering are not a protected class. Since when are payment processors not free to choose the types of businesses they support?
- jdoliner 8y agoNeither were the gay couple that were refused the wedding cake (in the instance of the wedding cake), that's why the supreme court ruled against them.
- woofyman 8y agoIn Colorado they were a protected class.
- jdoliner 8y agoWhich the supreme court overturned, ruling it unconstitutional.
- noelsusman 8y agoNo, they didn't. Their ruling rested largely on how hostile the Colorado administrative agency acted in that particular case. They made no ruling on the larger questions, which is how they got Kagan and Breyer on board with the majority opinion.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThat's not true. They ruled that the baker got a mulligan because government officials didn't show enough respect to his religious beliefs. It is still illegal and there's another case against him right now over this behavior.
- toofy 8y agoNo, it absolutely did not overturn protected status of LGBTQ. To quote Justice Kennedy, Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion".
- noelsusman 8y agoYou can try to make the argument that Alex Jones should belong to a protected class that needs special rules that infringe on other people's freedoms, but I don't think you'll win that argument.
- anoncoward111 8y agoCompletely agree, but there are also 3 types of people on this Earth who don't even think he should be censored like this: 1) Free speech purists, whether they agree or disagree 2) People who actually believe him 3) People who think Alex Jones' acting is a hilarious trainwreck of emotions (me!)
- daveFNbuck 8y agoHe's not being censored. This is even less related to censorship than being banned from Twitter, as it won't affect his ability to reach his audience in any way.
- anoncoward111 8y agoDid we say the same about Wikileaks when they weren't considered Russian sympathizers?
- daveFNbuck 8y agoI would. Censorship is about disallowing speech. Paypal isn't in a position to do that.
- code_duck 8y agoPayPal has been arbitrarily banning people for the entire time they’ve existed, like pretty much every website with members. But they already did come knocking for an industry I was in. Despite the fact there are stores in all 50 states selling the product, and it’s gray-area legal in all of those states and explicitly legal for cannabis in about half the country, it’s difficult to openly sell blown glass art pipes on PayPal for long. They will shut down your account, keep your money for as long as possible and ban you for life ostensibly for violating federal paraphernalia law. Thankfully, it’s not as if PayPal has a monopoly on handling payment.
- craftyguy 8y agoAlternatively: don't use paypal.
- noelsusman 8y agoYeah, it's not going to affect me.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoFirst they came for the Nazis.