4 ms·

What is your definition of Free speach? In america we have a fredom of speach to protect the people from the government. Not to protect the government from the

What is your definition of Free speach? In america we have a fredom of speach to protect the people from the government. Not to protect the government from the people. As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free market works.

bjornsing 6y ago
Can you really? Here in Sweden, if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt. I imagine it’s the same in most of the western world.
- awillen 6y ago
  So if a neo-Nazi walks into a restaurant and says that all Jews should burn to death then tries to order lunch and is refused, that owner is in for a world of hurt? We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. Now obviously it's a blurry line, but again, the neo-Nazis storming the capital and their ilk are just way over the line. Just because it's blurry doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist out of some sense of fairness.
  - silicon2401 6y ago
    It is a founding principle of western civilization that you cannot be prosecuted for thoughts and ideas. All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. > We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. I will hard disagree with this every day of the week. To me this is a clear example of how ideology has taken the place of religion in today's society. It's no longer enough for you to be civil and respect the laws, but even having the wrong thoughts is considered criminal, just like lust and envy are considered sinful in religion. We're heading in a dark direction if we're re-adopting the same principles and perspectives that were behind McCarthyism, let alone used to burn witches and conduct the Inquisition.
    - evgen 6y ago
      > All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. And this would be an issue if we were actually talking about government action, but we are talking about private individuals deciding who they will associate with. When the government gets involved then you have reason for concern, but if this is private parties engaging in commerce you have absolutely no leg to stand on.
    - anthonyrstevens 6y ago
      You're arguing against a straw man. No one is saying "ban them for their thoughts", they are saying "ban them for inciting violence". (cue the desperate, too-cute-by-half arguments "but are they REALLY inciting violence?")
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        Yup. It's a bad faith argument, yet it's everywhere. I'd think HN would be better than that, yet here we are, having the same fight every time free speech is the topic. Also note that the parent mentioned "government action" whereas the GP is referring to a business taking action. The distinction is incredibly important, yet so many free-speech purists respond to corporate action as if it was a government action.
    - lurker619 6y ago
      So do you agree we were wrong to ban ISIS recruiting groups on facebook? Less sarcastically, do you agree that the amplification of thought and rhetoric possible using social media isn't something that was considered 500 years ago? i.e. having wrong thoughts isn't dangerous, but having 75 million followers and pushing your wrong thoughts on them is dangerous. It isn't thoughts any longer - it's an action.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago
- mind-blight 6y ago
  I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if it would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there are any such protections that apply to businesses for political affiliation. The US tends to bias towards letting market pressures take care of this sort of thing, and then stepping in if there are enough high-profile cases of failure. There are also a bunch of edge cases that I think most people would be ok with. There are conservative-only dating sites. I wouldn't be allowed on the platform, but that doesn't really bother me. If there was a republican-only grocery store, that gets sketchy. And if there was a democrat-only government program, that would clearly be illegal.
  - anoonmoose 6y ago
    Fun fact- political affiliation, which is not a protected class in most of the US, IS in fact a protected class in DC. So yeah, you can kick someone out of your bar simply for wearing a MAGA hat in almost the entire US...except for DC.
  - tjalfi 6y ago
    > I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if it would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there are any such protections that apply to businesses for political affiliation. It depends on the context. Political affiliation is a protected class for employment in some states[0]. Political affiliation is a protected class for accommodations such as grocery stores in DC[1] and Madison, Wisconsin[2]. [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimination-employment.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin... [1] https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits [2] https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOIVCH32--45_CH39DECIRI_39.03EQOPOR https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordina...
- fimoreth 6y ago
  (In US) I agree that business owners should never refuse people based on political opinions. I would be firmly against AWS/Google not willing to work with a company because it has conservative views. In Parler's case, the issue isn't that they are conservative. The issue is that they refuse to take any responsibility for the hate and violence on their platform. John Matze had every opportunity to take responsibility for the content, but he was vocal that he would not do anything about it. If I were running a cloud provider company, I wouldn't want anything to do with this behavior either. Who cares whether the users lean right or left - hate and violence are unacceptable.
  - parliament32 6y ago
    And yet, there's plenty of hate and violence on Twitter, but they're not getting 24h notices before being deplatformed from the Apple app store. Take some key phrases from the Parler screenshots and paste them into a Twitter search.. it's pretty eye-opening.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt That surprises me. "Political opinion" is not a protected class [1] in most jurisdictions in the US, and I assume that the same holds for whatever the local equivalent is to protected class. Especially considering that a lot of European countries also have laws that prohibit Holocaust denial--which are unconstitutional in the US per the 1st Amendment. [1] Protected class, in US discrimination law jargon, is an attribute that you cannot legally use to discriminate against. The usual protected classes are sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, although there is some variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g., military service is protected in my state).
  - bjornsing 6y ago
    You’re right to be surprised. I looked it up and political opinion actually isn’t protected in Sweden either. There are other laws that prevent business owners from denying people entry or removing somebody from their store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. 84). They can’t even prevent people who have historically stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the store. But apparently they don’t have to do business with them. I thought they did.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  Broadly speaking, the situation you described is legal in the US. We have protected classes that you're not allowed to discriminate against, but "political belief/affiliation" isn't one of them.
  - bjornsing 6y ago
    Actually, it’s not in Sweden either. I thought it was, but it’s apparently not. There are other laws that prevent business owners from denying people entry or removing somebody from their store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. 84). They can’t even prevent people who have historically stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the store. But apparently they don’t have to do business with them. I thought they did.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
With english that bad there is no chance you are American or a Business owner. Please downvote this Russian/Chinese astroturfer.
alacombe 6y ago
> As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free market works. Can a business in the US refuse you service if you're gay / black ? Same argument applies.
SyzygistSix 6y ago
Freedom of speech exists to provide freedom of expression, even if it is controversial. I don't consider planning crimes, especially ones that would end freedom of expression as a societal value, to be covered under freedom of speech. Certainly each individual comment on Parler can't be considered to be planning a crime. That can't be said for the platform as a whole.

bjornsing 6y ago

Can you really? Here in Sweden, if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt. I imagine it’s the same in most of the western world.

awillen 6y ago
So if a neo-Nazi walks into a restaurant and says that all Jews should burn to death then tries to order lunch and is refused, that owner is in for a world of hurt? We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. Now obviously it's a blurry line, but again, the neo-Nazis storming the capital and their ilk are just way over the line. Just because it's blurry doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist out of some sense of fairness.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  It is a founding principle of western civilization that you cannot be prosecuted for thoughts and ideas. All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. > We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. I will hard disagree with this every day of the week. To me this is a clear example of how ideology has taken the place of religion in today's society. It's no longer enough for you to be civil and respect the laws, but even having the wrong thoughts is considered criminal, just like lust and envy are considered sinful in religion. We're heading in a dark direction if we're re-adopting the same principles and perspectives that were behind McCarthyism, let alone used to burn witches and conduct the Inquisition.
  - evgen 6y ago
    > All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. And this would be an issue if we were actually talking about government action, but we are talking about private individuals deciding who they will associate with. When the government gets involved then you have reason for concern, but if this is private parties engaging in commerce you have absolutely no leg to stand on.
  - anthonyrstevens 6y ago
    You're arguing against a straw man. No one is saying "ban them for their thoughts", they are saying "ban them for inciting violence". (cue the desperate, too-cute-by-half arguments "but are they REALLY inciting violence?")
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      Yup. It's a bad faith argument, yet it's everywhere. I'd think HN would be better than that, yet here we are, having the same fight every time free speech is the topic. Also note that the parent mentioned "government action" whereas the GP is referring to a business taking action. The distinction is incredibly important, yet so many free-speech purists respond to corporate action as if it was a government action.
  - lurker619 6y ago
    So do you agree we were wrong to ban ISIS recruiting groups on facebook? Less sarcastically, do you agree that the amplification of thought and rhetoric possible using social media isn't something that was considered 500 years ago? i.e. having wrong thoughts isn't dangerous, but having 75 million followers and pushing your wrong thoughts on them is dangerous. It isn't thoughts any longer - it's an action.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
mind-blight 6y ago
I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if it would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there are any such protections that apply to businesses for political affiliation. The US tends to bias towards letting market pressures take care of this sort of thing, and then stepping in if there are enough high-profile cases of failure. There are also a bunch of edge cases that I think most people would be ok with. There are conservative-only dating sites. I wouldn't be allowed on the platform, but that doesn't really bother me. If there was a republican-only grocery store, that gets sketchy. And if there was a democrat-only government program, that would clearly be illegal.
- anoonmoose 6y ago
  Fun fact- political affiliation, which is not a protected class in most of the US, IS in fact a protected class in DC. So yeah, you can kick someone out of your bar simply for wearing a MAGA hat in almost the entire US...except for DC.
- tjalfi 6y ago
  > I think the owner would get sued, but I'm not sure if it would hold up in US court. We have laws preventing businesses from discriminating based on race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin, but I don't know if there are any such protections that apply to businesses for political affiliation. It depends on the context. Political affiliation is a protected class for employment in some states[0]. Political affiliation is a protected class for accommodations such as grocery stores in DC[1] and Madison, Wisconsin[2]. [0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimination-employment.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin... [1] https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits [2] https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COORMAWIVOIVCH32--45_CH39DECIRI_39.03EQOPOR https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordina...
fimoreth 6y ago
(In US) I agree that business owners should never refuse people based on political opinions. I would be firmly against AWS/Google not willing to work with a company because it has conservative views. In Parler's case, the issue isn't that they are conservative. The issue is that they refuse to take any responsibility for the hate and violence on their platform. John Matze had every opportunity to take responsibility for the content, but he was vocal that he would not do anything about it. If I were running a cloud provider company, I wouldn't want anything to do with this behavior either. Who cares whether the users lean right or left - hate and violence are unacceptable.
- parliament32 6y ago
  And yet, there's plenty of hate and violence on Twitter, but they're not getting 24h notices before being deplatformed from the Apple app store. Take some key phrases from the Parler screenshots and paste them into a Twitter search.. it's pretty eye-opening.
jcranmer 6y ago
> if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt That surprises me. "Political opinion" is not a protected class [1] in most jurisdictions in the US, and I assume that the same holds for whatever the local equivalent is to protected class. Especially considering that a lot of European countries also have laws that prohibit Holocaust denial--which are unconstitutional in the US per the 1st Amendment. [1] Protected class, in US discrimination law jargon, is an attribute that you cannot legally use to discriminate against. The usual protected classes are sex, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, although there is some variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (e.g., military service is protected in my state).
- bjornsing 6y ago
  You’re right to be surprised. I looked it up and political opinion actually isn’t protected in Sweden either. There are other laws that prevent business owners from denying people entry or removing somebody from their store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. 84). They can’t even prevent people who have historically stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the store. But apparently they don’t have to do business with them. I thought they did.
anoonmoose 6y ago
Broadly speaking, the situation you described is legal in the US. We have protected classes that you're not allowed to discriminate against, but "political belief/affiliation" isn't one of them.
- bjornsing 6y ago
  Actually, it’s not in Sweden either. I thought it was, but it’s apparently not. There are other laws that prevent business owners from denying people entry or removing somebody from their store or similar (see Supreme Court decision NJA 1995 s. 84). They can’t even prevent people who have historically stolen from them from coming in and spending time in the store. But apparently they don’t have to do business with them. I thought they did.

deeeeplearning 6y ago

With english that bad there is no chance you are American or a Business owner. Please downvote this Russian/Chinese astroturfer.

alacombe 6y ago

> As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free market works. Can a business in the US refuse you service if you're gay / black ? Same argument applies.

SyzygistSix 6y ago

Freedom of speech exists to provide freedom of expression, even if it is controversial. I don't consider planning crimes, especially ones that would end freedom of expression as a societal value, to be covered under freedom of speech. Certainly each individual comment on Parler can't be considered to be planning a crime. That can't be said for the platform as a whole.