4 ms·

> but, yes, ok you can ban "hate speech," and presumably illegal speech, like repulsive pornography. Why do you think it's a given that anti-censorship common-

> but, yes, ok you can ban "hate speech," and presumably illegal speech, like repulsive pornography. Why do you think it's a given that anti-censorship common-carrier regulation would have an exception for "hate speech"? There's no constitutional precedent for that. There are specific categories of speech that the government may restriction --- slander and obscenity, for example --- and so-called "hate speech" isn't on the list. The United States has a very strong protections for free speech, even speech that offends people. Social media can, will, and must be legally required to carry everyone's speech, even when that speech is offensive. Social media is exactly like a railroad. It's infrastructure marketed to the general public as an important part of participating in society. Unelected and unaccountable individuals in Bay Area meeting rooms do not get to unilaterally decide how the rest of the world may speak.

charwalker 5y ago
The first amendment also respects the right to freedom of association. This law is akin to the government forcing you to do business with someone you would rather avoid, for example to make a cake for a gay wedding that goes against your personal religion. Do you see the breakdown here? The government cannot force private parties to associate with anyone like this, especially a controversial political figure. You seem to misunderstand the basic sense of the first amendment. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of...
- zackees 5y ago
  Nonsense, you can’t refuse service to people who are gay or muslim. This political affiliation is being carved out as some exception. This is the antithesis of the non discrimination the US has established itself as culturally. Suddenly the left is coming out with this segregationist/apartide/cancel culture edict. I’m sorry but we had this era of civil rights where we rejected discrimination in businesses.
- saurik 5y ago
  > This law is akin to the government forcing you to do business with someone you would rather avoid, for example to make a cake for a gay wedding that goes against your personal religion. But, the government does do that... specifically that ;P. The baker won a single narrow verdict on exactly their facts, but the Supreme Court refused to say anything about anything else and AFAIK most courts are on the "you must not discriminate" side.
  - w0de0 5y ago
    Poster mentioned it because it happened and I presume they don’t agree it was constitutional. And because it is an example in which the sort of people hoping regulate social media’s free association prove themselves to be hypocrites rapidly. Can Christian Mingle require that I assert I am a Christian? Should they be allowed to ban me if I start advocating Satanism?
w0de0 5y ago
Because the railroad can't be used to turn my favorite social media into the haven of trolls, fools, and reactionaries. If you accept all speech without any boundaries - ie, with no defined "hate speech," the internet will swiftly become the domain of the loudest haters. Your arguments apply to Twitter banning Trump - but they also apply to dang banning a poster who trolls everyone.

charwalker 5y ago

The first amendment also respects the right to freedom of association. This law is akin to the government forcing you to do business with someone you would rather avoid, for example to make a cake for a gay wedding that goes against your personal religion. Do you see the breakdown here? The government cannot force private parties to associate with anyone like this, especially a controversial political figure. You seem to misunderstand the basic sense of the first amendment. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of...

zackees 5y ago
Nonsense, you can’t refuse service to people who are gay or muslim. This political affiliation is being carved out as some exception. This is the antithesis of the non discrimination the US has established itself as culturally. Suddenly the left is coming out with this segregationist/apartide/cancel culture edict. I’m sorry but we had this era of civil rights where we rejected discrimination in businesses.
saurik 5y ago
> This law is akin to the government forcing you to do business with someone you would rather avoid, for example to make a cake for a gay wedding that goes against your personal religion. But, the government does do that... specifically that ;P. The baker won a single narrow verdict on exactly their facts, but the Supreme Court refused to say anything about anything else and AFAIK most courts are on the "you must not discriminate" side.
- w0de0 5y ago
  Poster mentioned it because it happened and I presume they don’t agree it was constitutional. And because it is an example in which the sort of people hoping regulate social media’s free association prove themselves to be hypocrites rapidly. Can Christian Mingle require that I assert I am a Christian? Should they be allowed to ban me if I start advocating Satanism?

w0de0 5y ago

Because the railroad can't be used to turn my favorite social media into the haven of trolls, fools, and reactionaries. If you accept all speech without any boundaries - ie, with no defined "hate speech," the internet will swiftly become the domain of the loudest haters. Your arguments apply to Twitter banning Trump - but they also apply to dang banning a poster who trolls everyone.