5 ms·

It's worth noting that there's also a side that wants the opposite of that, to censor bad opinions, but not be able to refuse making a gay wedding cake. Hypocr

It's worth noting that there's also a side that wants the opposite of that, to censor bad opinions, but not be able to refuse making a gay wedding cake. Hypocrites are not limited to specific groups, they're universal.

jwalgenbach 6y ago
Yeah, not so much. The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance. Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporation is free to allow you or disallow you from use of their services to broadcast that opinion. Newspapers have been doing this since the dawn of print. Google could not, for example, ban someone for being Jewish. You can argue about whether sexual orientation deserves status as a protected class, but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. It is a false equivalency.
- archgoon 6y ago
  I don't see the word 'law' showing up anywhere in kbensons comment. It's disingenuous to claim that kbenson was making a legal argument.
  - postnihilism 6y ago
    kbensons is explicitly referencing a legal case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I feel that the goalposts here have been shot out into space and are orbiting the barycenter where the point is. Let's maybe spell out separately whether or not these two situations are equivalent or not a) legally, b) ethically, c) in principle.
  - jwalgenbach 6y ago
    Fair enough. a) As I stated in the argument about the difference between discrimination against protected classes versus hosting content on a private server, I'd say that legally, these are not equivalent. b) Ethically is an interesting question. Since the ethics of denying someone service based on their sexual orientation is largely viewed as reprehensible, maybe a better question would be whether or not (freed from questions of protected class) the baker would decorate a Nazi themed cake versus allowing federated apps that are largely used for the dissemination of white supremacist ideology to be hosted? c) In principle, I'd say they are not equivalent for the following reason: selling and decorating a cake is a business transaction between two entities. The cake (decorated or not) ownership moves from producer to consumer. The consumer is purchasing a physical cake. If the cake is ever made public, it is at the behest of the purchasers of the cake, and any consequences of that public display will be suffered by the purchaser. Essentially, the baker's name is not on the cake, and no one needs to know. Hosting apps or other contents affects the reputation of the hosting company, and damages to their business reputation fall on it. Think about Facebook being recognized as a conduit for foreign interference in U.S. elections, or whether or not the New York Times will accept ad content from an adult video company. The name on the masthead is the entity that suffers the damage first.
  - TempLogsForOne 6y ago
    If you are referring to what I think you are, I agree. All of this abusive and manipulative argumentation about these things comes down to the fact that freedom is being curtailed more and more with every passing day, with people arguing more and more how "we just need to do one more thing to curtail people's freedom and then we are done" … but it's never enough and they are never done. There is always some other argument and reason to further add shackles to people's minds and ankles. In the end, all of this only adds immense amounts of volatility and instability and totally unsustainable risk that will invariably blow up. The Constitution was developed to allow people to live and associate and speak freely … that has been chipped away at for decades and even centuries now. It's sad and sick, and will only ever result in calamity as the USA, the only place on the planet where you used to at least be free, is being shackled by useful idiots who have no idea they are doing the will of the world dominating global ruling class.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. Have you ever heard the term "strawman"?
dmix 6y ago
No one is forcing Google or their employees to write hate speech on a cake or an app though, that's a pretty massive difference in analogies. Nor are people asking for a free-for-all where Google can't delete any speech on their platforms. People were fine when they were deleting spam and had a limited content restriction policies against things like directly promoting violence or posting gore/cp and other obvious tier stuff. I haven't heard many people pushing for governments to force Google et al to not be able to delete things from their platforms either - outside of some tiny fringes who don't understand how the internet works. Which is therefore still consistently pro-freedom. Likewise compelled speech + censorship of an arbitrary and ever expanding list of wrongthink is consistently authoritarian. I really don't see the contradiction in either of these worldviews. It's the classic centralized top-down puppet-mastery of individuals choices vs embracing the chaos of freedom of individual choice (within some limited boundaries). This battle has been waged for as long as society has been around and is a natural side-effect of power structures.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Both situations are really a matter of freedom of speech. Forget Google, does a person with a personal website that allows comments get to control what comments they want displayed on their site or not? Does that person get to choose what work they want to accept from a potential customer? Both situations boil down to freedom of speech. Both have extra, specific laws that deal with their situations. Without a well thought out justification, a mismatch between the position on those is likely hypocritical, no matter which you are for or against. A well thought out positions may not be, but I don't think most people actually have a well thought out opinion on the intricacies of how these intersect, and what it means, and instead fall back on what they would like to be able to do in that situation, or on their impression based on the way it was presented to them (I think it far more likely contextual presentation is to blame for some of this than actual reasoning). It does little good to point out the hypocrisy of some group on a specific issue when that form of hypocrisy is widespread and rampant. We should also point out the cause of the hypocrisy itself.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
richiebful1 6y ago
You could make the argument that the "socially liberal" side that wants to censor hate speech, but protect gay people from discrimination is logically consistent. A social liberal could argue on the point of protecting the rights of a marginalized minority. By censoring (for example) calls for violence, social liberals are protecting the safety of the targeted group. By requiring a cake shop to serve gay couples (or interracial couples, to throw in another example), social liberals are protecting a marginalized minority's access to services.
KMag 6y ago
I'm not saying all people making such arguments are making consistent arguments, but there's a consistent argument to be had that being forced to say (or write) something (say on a cake) and being forced to not say (or write) something are both compulsions in communication, and to be opposed to all compulsions in communication (to the positive or negative). I've heard several people argue that a cake shop should be compelled to sell a cake to a gay couple, but shouldn't be compelled to write two same-genedered names on it or compelled to craft a plastic figurine of two grooms or two brides for the top. I've heard it argued that if the gay couple wants "Susan and Jeff" and a little figurine of a bride and groom, or any other artistic expressions they'd do for a strait couple should be compellable, but the government shouldn't be able to compel artistic expressions or writing. Now, I'd boycott the hell out of such an establishment, but as an abstract argument, I think compelled expression is a bad idea. It's really not that huge a step from compelled expression to re-education camps. Twitter's service isn't that they write 140 character prose for you, and YouTube's service isn't that they create videos to your specification. It would be hypocritical to demand that YouTube be forced to create a custom video to your specifications (or a ghost writer forced to write a book for someone with whom they disagree) and yet the cake shop shouldn't be forced to write two same-gendered names on a cake. These people arguing against forced cake lettering aren't arguing for forced book creation or forced video creation. Once again, refusing to make a gay wedding cake makes you a jerk and worthy of boycotting, but there is a consistent argument to be made simultaneously against forced expression and against forced silence.

jwalgenbach 6y ago

Yeah, not so much. The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance. Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporation is free to allow you or disallow you from use of their services to broadcast that opinion. Newspapers have been doing this since the dawn of print. Google could not, for example, ban someone for being Jewish. You can argue about whether sexual orientation deserves status as a protected class, but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. It is a false equivalency.

archgoon 6y ago
I don't see the word 'law' showing up anywhere in kbensons comment. It's disingenuous to claim that kbenson was making a legal argument.
- postnihilism 6y ago
  kbensons is explicitly referencing a legal case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I feel that the goalposts here have been shot out into space and are orbiting the barycenter where the point is. Let's maybe spell out separately whether or not these two situations are equivalent or not a) legally, b) ethically, c) in principle.
- jwalgenbach 6y ago
  Fair enough. a) As I stated in the argument about the difference between discrimination against protected classes versus hosting content on a private server, I'd say that legally, these are not equivalent. b) Ethically is an interesting question. Since the ethics of denying someone service based on their sexual orientation is largely viewed as reprehensible, maybe a better question would be whether or not (freed from questions of protected class) the baker would decorate a Nazi themed cake versus allowing federated apps that are largely used for the dissemination of white supremacist ideology to be hosted? c) In principle, I'd say they are not equivalent for the following reason: selling and decorating a cake is a business transaction between two entities. The cake (decorated or not) ownership moves from producer to consumer. The consumer is purchasing a physical cake. If the cake is ever made public, it is at the behest of the purchasers of the cake, and any consequences of that public display will be suffered by the purchaser. Essentially, the baker's name is not on the cake, and no one needs to know. Hosting apps or other contents affects the reputation of the hosting company, and damages to their business reputation fall on it. Think about Facebook being recognized as a conduit for foreign interference in U.S. elections, or whether or not the New York Times will accept ad content from an adult video company. The name on the masthead is the entity that suffers the damage first.
- TempLogsForOne 6y ago
  If you are referring to what I think you are, I agree. All of this abusive and manipulative argumentation about these things comes down to the fact that freedom is being curtailed more and more with every passing day, with people arguing more and more how "we just need to do one more thing to curtail people's freedom and then we are done" … but it's never enough and they are never done. There is always some other argument and reason to further add shackles to people's minds and ankles. In the end, all of this only adds immense amounts of volatility and instability and totally unsustainable risk that will invariably blow up. The Constitution was developed to allow people to live and associate and speak freely … that has been chipped away at for decades and even centuries now. It's sad and sick, and will only ever result in calamity as the USA, the only place on the planet where you used to at least be free, is being shackled by useful idiots who have no idea they are doing the will of the world dominating global ruling class.
dahfizz 6y ago
> but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. Have you ever heard the term "strawman"?

dmix 6y ago

No one is forcing Google or their employees to write hate speech on a cake or an app though, that's a pretty massive difference in analogies. Nor are people asking for a free-for-all where Google can't delete any speech on their platforms. People were fine when they were deleting spam and had a limited content restriction policies against things like directly promoting violence or posting gore/cp and other obvious tier stuff. I haven't heard many people pushing for governments to force Google et al to not be able to delete things from their platforms either - outside of some tiny fringes who don't understand how the internet works. Which is therefore still consistently pro-freedom. Likewise compelled speech + censorship of an arbitrary and ever expanding list of wrongthink is consistently authoritarian. I really don't see the contradiction in either of these worldviews. It's the classic centralized top-down puppet-mastery of individuals choices vs embracing the chaos of freedom of individual choice (within some limited boundaries). This battle has been waged for as long as society has been around and is a natural side-effect of power structures.

kbenson 6y ago
Both situations are really a matter of freedom of speech. Forget Google, does a person with a personal website that allows comments get to control what comments they want displayed on their site or not? Does that person get to choose what work they want to accept from a potential customer? Both situations boil down to freedom of speech. Both have extra, specific laws that deal with their situations. Without a well thought out justification, a mismatch between the position on those is likely hypocritical, no matter which you are for or against. A well thought out positions may not be, but I don't think most people actually have a well thought out opinion on the intricacies of how these intersect, and what it means, and instead fall back on what they would like to be able to do in that situation, or on their impression based on the way it was presented to them (I think it far more likely contextual presentation is to blame for some of this than actual reasoning). It does little good to point out the hypocrisy of some group on a specific issue when that form of hypocrisy is widespread and rampant. We should also point out the cause of the hypocrisy itself.
- joshuamorton 6y ago

richiebful1 6y ago

You could make the argument that the "socially liberal" side that wants to censor hate speech, but protect gay people from discrimination is logically consistent. A social liberal could argue on the point of protecting the rights of a marginalized minority. By censoring (for example) calls for violence, social liberals are protecting the safety of the targeted group. By requiring a cake shop to serve gay couples (or interracial couples, to throw in another example), social liberals are protecting a marginalized minority's access to services.

KMag 6y ago

I'm not saying all people making such arguments are making consistent arguments, but there's a consistent argument to be had that being forced to say (or write) something (say on a cake) and being forced to not say (or write) something are both compulsions in communication, and to be opposed to all compulsions in communication (to the positive or negative). I've heard several people argue that a cake shop should be compelled to sell a cake to a gay couple, but shouldn't be compelled to write two same-genedered names on it or compelled to craft a plastic figurine of two grooms or two brides for the top. I've heard it argued that if the gay couple wants "Susan and Jeff" and a little figurine of a bride and groom, or any other artistic expressions they'd do for a strait couple should be compellable, but the government shouldn't be able to compel artistic expressions or writing. Now, I'd boycott the hell out of such an establishment, but as an abstract argument, I think compelled expression is a bad idea. It's really not that huge a step from compelled expression to re-education camps. Twitter's service isn't that they write 140 character prose for you, and YouTube's service isn't that they create videos to your specification. It would be hypocritical to demand that YouTube be forced to create a custom video to your specifications (or a ghost writer forced to write a book for someone with whom they disagree) and yet the cake shop shouldn't be forced to write two same-gendered names on a cake. These people arguing against forced cake lettering aren't arguing for forced book creation or forced video creation. Once again, refusing to make a gay wedding cake makes you a jerk and worthy of boycotting, but there is a consistent argument to be made simultaneously against forced expression and against forced silence.