4 ms·

> "what the government can or cannot prevent us from saying (free speech)" To my fellow Americans, please stop repeating this; it just makes us look uneducated

> "what the government can or cannot prevent us from saying (free speech)" To my fellow Americans, please stop repeating this; it just makes us look uneducated. The First Amendment of the Constitution != freedom of speech; it's an subset of freedom of speech that happens to bind the United States government. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

krapp 6y ago
When Americans stop referring to things like social media banning, deplatforming and "cancel culture" as violations of their First Amendment rights, as does often happen, other Americans will stop needing to correct them.
- mindslight 6y ago
  A few people actually saying a thing does not prevent that thing from being a strawman. And invoking a sample as representative of a group escalates arguments instead of converging.
andrewzah 6y ago
This is pedantic. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, I don't see how my comment could be misconstrued.
labcomputer 6y ago
Ok, so does the same logic apply to the other freedoms named in the 1st amendment? Specifically the rights of association and assembly? Does Twitter (and the users of Twitter) not have the right to avoid association with people whose views they find distasteful? Should the government be compelling Twitter to associate with those people? And, just to take this one step further, how is Twitter different from a private club (which affirmatively has the right to select and reject membership for individuals from the public, even--and I find this idea odious--based on membership in a protected class). Is it just the fact that members of the private Twitter club can choose to have their tweets broadcast to the world?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "Does Twitter (and the users of Twitter) not have the right to avoid association with people whose views they find distasteful?" Property owners tried the same freedom of association argument in courts a few decades ago because they wanted to deny POC and other protected classes equal opportunity in housing. The answer back then was the Fair Housing Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, and/or national origin. Perhaps we need the equivalent today: a Fair Communications Act of 2020. Twitter and other social media networks don't qualify for the private club exemption because they don't meet the criteria; they are quite clearly the online equivalent of, in legal jargon, "public accommodations". (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments used by bigots of various stripes in landmark legal cases to attempt to justify themselves in the present day strikes me as both deeply ironic and more than a little revealing.)
  - labcomputer 6y ago
    This is quite an interesting response. It feels a bit "law for thee, but not for me". > (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments used by bigots of various stripes in landmark legal cases to attempt to justify themselves in the present day strikes me as both deeply ironic and more than a little revealing.) You apparently overlooked the spot where I explicitly called out that I find the idea of discrimination based on race, religion, and/or national origin "odious". Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point: Prior to passage of the FHA, the 1st amendment was viewed so expansively that it was seen as acceptable to discriminate against even skin color for housing (which is one of the most fundamental human needs). It took the FHA to change that. Further, not even the FHA protects political affiliation as class. On top of that federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act specifically exempts (and again, I think this is horrible) private clubs (and religious organizations) from the protections against discrimination, even for discrimination based on protected classes (like race). It's true that we put limits on the freedom of association (and for good reason!), but political affiliation has never had the same level of protections as other classes (such as skin color or sex). In fact, only a few states (and "progressive" ones at that, like California and New York!) make it illegal to discriminate against employees for political affiliation. So, to recap: 1. Political affiliation is not protected the same way as race, religion, national origin 2. Not even race, religion, and national origin are fully protected (i.e., as protected as I think they should be) against discrimination by private clubs. As a result: 1. I'm not sure why you would expect the Fair Communications Act of 2020 to protect political affiliation--it's not generally seen as a protected class, especially in conservative areas. 2. Even if political affiliation became a protected class, private clubs may be exempted. You've asserted that Twitter is a public accommodation, but not said what makes them such. 3. It's hard to take seriously the idea that conservatives are concerned about political affiliation-based discrimination in one forum when they haven't bothered to extend those protections in many others.

krapp 6y ago

When Americans stop referring to things like social media banning, deplatforming and "cancel culture" as violations of their First Amendment rights, as does often happen, other Americans will stop needing to correct them.

mindslight 6y ago
A few people actually saying a thing does not prevent that thing from being a strawman. And invoking a sample as representative of a group escalates arguments instead of converging.

andrewzah 6y ago

This is pedantic. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, I don't see how my comment could be misconstrued.

labcomputer 6y ago

Ok, so does the same logic apply to the other freedoms named in the 1st amendment? Specifically the rights of association and assembly? Does Twitter (and the users of Twitter) not have the right to avoid association with people whose views they find distasteful? Should the government be compelling Twitter to associate with those people? And, just to take this one step further, how is Twitter different from a private club (which affirmatively has the right to select and reject membership for individuals from the public, even--and I find this idea odious--based on membership in a protected class). Is it just the fact that members of the private Twitter club can choose to have their tweets broadcast to the world?

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "Does Twitter (and the users of Twitter) not have the right to avoid association with people whose views they find distasteful?" Property owners tried the same freedom of association argument in courts a few decades ago because they wanted to deny POC and other protected classes equal opportunity in housing. The answer back then was the Fair Housing Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, and/or national origin. Perhaps we need the equivalent today: a Fair Communications Act of 2020. Twitter and other social media networks don't qualify for the private club exemption because they don't meet the criteria; they are quite clearly the online equivalent of, in legal jargon, "public accommodations". (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments used by bigots of various stripes in landmark legal cases to attempt to justify themselves in the present day strikes me as both deeply ironic and more than a little revealing.)
- labcomputer 6y ago
  This is quite an interesting response. It feels a bit "law for thee, but not for me". > (May I add that seeing progressives recycling discredited arguments used by bigots of various stripes in landmark legal cases to attempt to justify themselves in the present day strikes me as both deeply ironic and more than a little revealing.) You apparently overlooked the spot where I explicitly called out that I find the idea of discrimination based on race, religion, and/or national origin "odious". Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point: Prior to passage of the FHA, the 1st amendment was viewed so expansively that it was seen as acceptable to discriminate against even skin color for housing (which is one of the most fundamental human needs). It took the FHA to change that. Further, not even the FHA protects political affiliation as class. On top of that federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act specifically exempts (and again, I think this is horrible) private clubs (and religious organizations) from the protections against discrimination, even for discrimination based on protected classes (like race). It's true that we put limits on the freedom of association (and for good reason!), but political affiliation has never had the same level of protections as other classes (such as skin color or sex). In fact, only a few states (and "progressive" ones at that, like California and New York!) make it illegal to discriminate against employees for political affiliation. So, to recap: 1. Political affiliation is not protected the same way as race, religion, national origin 2. Not even race, religion, and national origin are fully protected (i.e., as protected as I think they should be) against discrimination by private clubs. As a result: 1. I'm not sure why you would expect the Fair Communications Act of 2020 to protect political affiliation--it's not generally seen as a protected class, especially in conservative areas. 2. Even if political affiliation became a protected class, private clubs may be exempted. You've asserted that Twitter is a public accommodation, but not said what makes them such. 3. It's hard to take seriously the idea that conservatives are concerned about political affiliation-based discrimination in one forum when they haven't bothered to extend those protections in many others.