4 ms·

Are you referring to Antifa, BLM, or crazy Buffalo guy at the capitol who apparently almost took down the entire government by looking scary?

anoonmoose 5y ago
Yes. Twitter should be free to ban them too. Just because you're mad they don't doesn't mean the law is wrong.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Who said I was mad? I just wanted to make sure you weren't implying a double standard. Is that upsetting you for some reason? Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above. In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. "Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      >Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Yes and it wasn't illegal for a long time so what's your point here? >In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. Thanks for agreeing that you can add protections to different classes. > And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. No it's not "good" to discriminate in the way you're referring to it by shutting down what they say. It's good to present your differing opinion and put it out there so people can decide whether they agree. A lot people really thought discriminating based on skin color was "good" too.
      - anoonmoose 5y ago
        You asked.me.if I thought we should be able to discriminate against certain groups. I said no, because it's illegal, and I don't want to get rid of that law. If someone engages in speech I disagree with, I don't want the government to punish them for it. That does not mean I think bad speech should have no repercussions- I just think those repercussions should be in the private realm, in the hands of private citizens and private organizations. In case it isn't clear, I'd sooner do away with all protected classes than add "Nazi" to the list.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    There is no double standard. You can't ban black people from using your service based on race, but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      >but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories. You seem to be confused about what the double standard is. They are not being banned and neither are the several dictators using the platforms to promote violence.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        You intentionally confused what you mean by saying that blacks should be free to ban. They shouldn't be free to ban based on race. The platforms are free to ban dictators in the US and other groups in the US that incite violence with conspiracy theories. That is well within their rights, and it is even a public service to do so.
  - timdev2 5y ago
    As other have pointed out, you're describing protected classes. If you're advocating that political viewpoint should be a protected class, that's fine. It's worth noting, though, that while I'm not allowed to ban Muslims from my bible study forum site, I'd be well within my rights to prohibit them (and anyone else) from evangelizing islam there.

anoonmoose 5y ago

Yes. Twitter should be free to ban them too. Just because you're mad they don't doesn't mean the law is wrong.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Who said I was mad? I just wanted to make sure you weren't implying a double standard. Is that upsetting you for some reason? Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above. In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. "Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal. Yes and it wasn't illegal for a long time so what's your point here? >In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal. Thanks for agreeing that you can add protections to different classes. > And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. No it's not "good" to discriminate in the way you're referring to it by shutting down what they say. It's good to present your differing opinion and put it out there so people can decide whether they agree. A lot people really thought discriminating based on skin color was "good" too.
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      You asked.me.if I thought we should be able to discriminate against certain groups. I said no, because it's illegal, and I don't want to get rid of that law. If someone engages in speech I disagree with, I don't want the government to punish them for it. That does not mean I think bad speech should have no repercussions- I just think those repercussions should be in the private realm, in the hands of private citizens and private organizations. In case it isn't clear, I'd sooner do away with all protected classes than add "Nazi" to the list.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  There is no double standard. You can't ban black people from using your service based on race, but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories. You seem to be confused about what the double standard is. They are not being banned and neither are the several dictators using the platforms to promote violence.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      You intentionally confused what you mean by saying that blacks should be free to ban. They shouldn't be free to ban based on race. The platforms are free to ban dictators in the US and other groups in the US that incite violence with conspiracy theories. That is well within their rights, and it is even a public service to do so.
- timdev2 5y ago
  As other have pointed out, you're describing protected classes. If you're advocating that political viewpoint should be a protected class, that's fine. It's worth noting, though, that while I'm not allowed to ban Muslims from my bible study forum site, I'd be well within my rights to prohibit them (and anyone else) from evangelizing islam there.