56 ms·

> First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Entirely. But... man I’m not so sure as many people believe this as they should. Can we not ignore tha

> First and foremost, free speech is a moral principle. Entirely. But... man I’m not so sure as many people believe this as they should. Can we not ignore that as soon as these tech companies get monopoly status, they close their fists in more every day? Something has to give. We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why does government need to step in and whitelist which services are protected? When are we going to be honest that none of this is about protecting people, but protecting ideas? The idea my political wedge issue is correct, so I’ll ban anyone that disagrees. The idea that I should be allowed to run a monopoly, eating and smashing any potential competitors? None of this is about Black Lives or Covid or Elections. That’s the cover to get the thing they really want. Agreement with ideas you have or that keep you in power.

sneak 6y ago
> We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.
  - sneak 6y ago
    No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - sneak 6y ago
        The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion. The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me. My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        > The state has already drawn those lines, And surely the state is never one or two elections from redrawing those lines to include you right? That would be impossible right? You have all the “correct” ideas... and I’m sure those KKK spectres don’t think the same damn thing. You’re right; let’s not be good, just, or ethical to anyone the state doesn’t force us to. ESP when their only crime is thinking the wrong thing. That’s a really good system that would surely never bite the wrong people in the ass.
        exporectomy 6y ago
        I'm interested in what you believe, not what the law says. I think you're using appeal to the law as a way of avoiding having to defend your stated beliefs. If you don't understand what you believe or why, then it's a good chance to think about it enough to make a cohesive statement. Maybe your belief is simply "whatever the law says, I agree". That's fine but also the end of any productive attempt to work out what's right and wrong.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    A KKK member could presumably still buy food if banned from a grocery store for preaching hate speech at the grocery store, they would just have to hire someone to do the shopping for them. In America there is no right to food or shelter so I don't know why this concern is raised in a discussion of free speech?
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      > In America there is no right to food or shelter Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. (Please don’t go off and try and claim that rights are things anyone else has to provide) Aside from the obvious issues with banning someone from buying food for having the wrong thoughts - which I should just be able to end right there because how insane is that!? - there are points to be made about: - protected classes and not needing them all enumerated before you are forced to treat people well even if they are mean - ethically not being a fascist that would block people from buying food for disagreeing with them, and congrats, this is actual fascism - generally just minding your own fucking business about how wrong someone is and being able to separate even awful beliefs from participation in other aspects of society - and most importantly not short-sightedly canceling people because tomorrow it might be you that has the unpopular idea, as unbelievable as I’m sure you could find that
      - sneak 6y ago
        > Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. You are mistaken, and have confused the US declaration of independence (not a legal document, more of a philosophical one) with the US constitution (a binding legal document). I did a re-read to be sure, as you suggested. I saw it in the declaration, not the constitution. GP is right, however: you have a right to life, but nowhere in there do you have a right to not be kicked out of grocery stores and restaurants, or to be provided food by any second party. I think perhaps you should tone down the condescension in your comment. :(

sneak 6y ago

> We would (should) not accept that someone with “wrong” views be denied a bank account or to shop at a grocery store. Why? I am fine with banks and grocery stores having freedom of association, just as any other business or person should. Being a KKK member is not a protected class, and discriminating against KKK members in hiring and in the provision of goods or services is entirely in-bounds.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
You're fine with preventing KKK members from buying food? You would literally have them starve to death? And you're fine with private corporations making decisions on who has the right to live and who doesn't? Personally, I value human rights. I think even KKK members have the right to live.
- sneak 6y ago
  No, I'm fine with any individual who sells food (or any other thing) being able to opt to not do business with anyone they like. That's a big difference from what you claimed. That's actually already true now (outside of protected classes). Any restaurant can ask KKK members to leave if they so desire. Same with any supermarket. Any individual proprietor having freedom of association is a long long way from "specific types of customers should be barred from buying food from anyone and should literally starve to death". That's a strawman position that you invented.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    How do you draw a line between religion (protected class) and other ideologies/oragnizations/beliefs that you don't want protection for? Where do, eg Scientologists, Pastafarians, and cult members fit? Is it right to be able to exclude Islamists (political ideology) despite them being Muslims (religion)?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - sneak 6y ago
      The state has already drawn those lines, and does not recognize KKK membership as a religion. The legal lines for what is or isn't protected are fairly well defined, by people other than me. My own personal opinions and beliefs on the matter don't count for anything.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        > The state has already drawn those lines, And surely the state is never one or two elections from redrawing those lines to include you right? That would be impossible right? You have all the “correct” ideas... and I’m sure those KKK spectres don’t think the same damn thing. You’re right; let’s not be good, just, or ethical to anyone the state doesn’t force us to. ESP when their only crime is thinking the wrong thing. That’s a really good system that would surely never bite the wrong people in the ass.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        I'm interested in what you believe, not what the law says. I think you're using appeal to the law as a way of avoiding having to defend your stated beliefs. If you don't understand what you believe or why, then it's a good chance to think about it enough to make a cohesive statement. Maybe your belief is simply "whatever the law says, I agree". That's fine but also the end of any productive attempt to work out what's right and wrong.
- staticman2 6y ago
  A KKK member could presumably still buy food if banned from a grocery store for preaching hate speech at the grocery store, they would just have to hire someone to do the shopping for them. In America there is no right to food or shelter so I don't know why this concern is raised in a discussion of free speech?
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    > In America there is no right to food or shelter Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. (Please don’t go off and try and claim that rights are things anyone else has to provide) Aside from the obvious issues with banning someone from buying food for having the wrong thoughts - which I should just be able to end right there because how insane is that!? - there are points to be made about: - protected classes and not needing them all enumerated before you are forced to treat people well even if they are mean - ethically not being a fascist that would block people from buying food for disagreeing with them, and congrats, this is actual fascism - generally just minding your own fucking business about how wrong someone is and being able to separate even awful beliefs from participation in other aspects of society - and most importantly not short-sightedly canceling people because tomorrow it might be you that has the unpopular idea, as unbelievable as I’m sure you could find that
    - sneak 6y ago
      > Yes, there definitely is. Food and shelter are vital to life. I seem to recall something about life liberty and happiness in some obscure little read part of the constitution. Let me know if you see it on a re-read. You are mistaken, and have confused the US declaration of independence (not a legal document, more of a philosophical one) with the US constitution (a binding legal document). I did a re-read to be sure, as you suggested. I saw it in the declaration, not the constitution. GP is right, however: you have a right to life, but nowhere in there do you have a right to not be kicked out of grocery stores and restaurants, or to be provided food by any second party. I think perhaps you should tone down the condescension in your comment. :(