4 ms·

The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. Parler is free to (and did) find another vendor in the free market. If this op

by furr 6y ago

The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. Parler is free to (and did) find another vendor in the free market. If this option isn't realistic, bust up the monopoly that prevents it. If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee?

ttt0 6y ago
> The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. If it did I wouldn't be here arguing that it should. And let's stop pretending like we are so considered about the private sector and private companies aren't ever subjected to any regulations whatsoever. > If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee? I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies. I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. They simply shouldn't be allowed to gang up on anyone and remove you from a polite society just like that.
- furr 6y ago
  > I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies I didn't ask if you did, I provided an excellent example of what you're describing. In your scenario, the 1A would prohibit a business (the NFL), from restricting speech by an employee (Kapernick). This principle is what you're in favor of, correct? "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. I'm not trying to be mean, but what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand? Should barbershops be subjected to the regulations of auto industry? It doesn't make any sense. > "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech? I'm not talking about literally rewriting the 1A, I'm taking about regulating the tech industry.
    - furr 6y ago
      what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service, so why would you include them in this list? I'm taking about regulating the tech industry ...by extending 1A rights. So what would meet your legal standard of "tech," since now we've suddenly shifted to only regulating those? Banks are not "tech" companies. Are you dodging the NFL example so hard because the NFL would be excluded from your legislation? They have $91B market cap and actively develop new tech. https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and-the-game/ https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and...
      - ttt0 6y ago
        I'm "dodging" the NFL example, because again, I do not care about NFL. At all. They can be forced to keep Colin or not, pick whatever answer you want. It's has nothing to do with it. And nothing has shifted, I'm still talking about: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. If you expect me to come up on a spot with a bunch of legalspeak to precisely define what would be the target of such legislation(s), it's not going to happen as I am not a lawyer. If you disagree with my opinion and you think that tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike in the era of Covid, just say so. But don't give me that hairsplitting in an attempt to portray it as something that's either impossible or "illogical" to do, as it's simply not true and this entire argument is just stupid, if not dishonest. It's just semantics.
        yorwba 6y ago
        > tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike Yes. If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. The alternative is bad companies providing the worst possible service they legally can to customers they don't really want because the law forces them to, which makes it more difficult for good companies to compete with them for market share. But if the bad companies arbitrarily refuse to do business with anyone they dislike, the rejected customers will go to the good companies instead, which helps them grow and improve their service. Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.

by furr 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

> The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. If it did I wouldn't be here arguing that it should. And let's stop pretending like we are so considered about the private sector and private companies aren't ever subjected to any regulations whatsoever. > If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee? I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies. I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. They simply shouldn't be allowed to gang up on anyone and remove you from a polite society just like that.

furr 6y ago
> I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies I didn't ask if you did, I provided an excellent example of what you're describing. In your scenario, the 1A would prohibit a business (the NFL), from restricting speech by an employee (Kapernick). This principle is what you're in favor of, correct? "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech?
- ttt0 6y ago
  > I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. I'm not trying to be mean, but what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand? Should barbershops be subjected to the regulations of auto industry? It doesn't make any sense. > "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech? I'm not talking about literally rewriting the 1A, I'm taking about regulating the tech industry.
  - furr 6y ago
    what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service, so why would you include them in this list? I'm taking about regulating the tech industry ...by extending 1A rights. So what would meet your legal standard of "tech," since now we've suddenly shifted to only regulating those? Banks are not "tech" companies. Are you dodging the NFL example so hard because the NFL would be excluded from your legislation? They have $91B market cap and actively develop new tech. https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and-the-game/ https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and...
    - ttt0 6y ago
      I'm "dodging" the NFL example, because again, I do not care about NFL. At all. They can be forced to keep Colin or not, pick whatever answer you want. It's has nothing to do with it. And nothing has shifted, I'm still talking about: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. If you expect me to come up on a spot with a bunch of legalspeak to precisely define what would be the target of such legislation(s), it's not going to happen as I am not a lawyer. If you disagree with my opinion and you think that tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike in the era of Covid, just say so. But don't give me that hairsplitting in an attempt to portray it as something that's either impossible or "illogical" to do, as it's simply not true and this entire argument is just stupid, if not dishonest. It's just semantics.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        > tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike Yes. If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. The alternative is bad companies providing the worst possible service they legally can to customers they don't really want because the law forces them to, which makes it more difficult for good companies to compete with them for market share. But if the bad companies arbitrarily refuse to do business with anyone they dislike, the rejected customers will go to the good companies instead, which helps them grow and improve their service. Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.