4 ms·

Sorry but a company saying they won’t put up with your bullshit is not in any way censorship. If a company hates puppies and they stop hosting sites with puppie

Sorry but a company saying they won’t put up with your bullshit is not in any way censorship. If a company hates puppies and they stop hosting sites with puppies that’s also not censorship. Go learn how to build your own service and put your bullshit there. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. 8chan exorcised their freedom of speech, and now there are albeit small consequences. That’s how the system is supposed to work. People inevitably trot out counter examples that they believe will “own” my “libtard” views like the whole bakery thing. Should the bakery have had to make the cake for the gay customers? Nope. Their a business and can refuse service for whatever reason. Turns out there were some legal things involved. Guess what. Consequences. We have a tenuous and often brittle social contract. The social contract decides what is and what isn’t ok. And once you break the contract there are often consequences. That’s not censorship. That’s existing in a society. Companies and people that don’t like those consequences are free to exit this society and begin their own at any time. But guess what. There’s consequences to that, too. The only real question is if they can be adults about it and accept those consequences. And in most cases they can’t.

singularity2001 7y ago
Once a service becomes a commodity it should be treated as public service an be subjected to free speech laws. There are even interesting cases in the US promoting this ruling: Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." "sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom"

singularity2001 7y ago

Once a service becomes a commodity it should be treated as public service an be subjected to free speech laws. There are even interesting cases in the US promoting this ruling: Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." "sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom"