3 ms·
> explain to me why it's ok for these politicians because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform any
by anoonmoose 5y ago
> explain to me why it's ok for these politicians
because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone.
> why they're allowed to have hearings
same as above.
> Why one and not the other?
For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
- CountDrewku 5y ago>because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment. Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
- anoonmoose 5y agoI am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws. Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.