8 ms·

You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, an

You are assuming the answer. We are currently having an argument as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. Given we have a right to free speech, and that this is not allowed to be infringed on by any US government, does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? There is quite a body of law that says that the government should do just that.

bandyaboot 4y ago
That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time. So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting. Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Twitter, Facebook, et al. have the power to arrest you and seize your home?
triceratops 4y ago
> does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? Surely then you'd be ok with me camping on your lawn day and night with a sign to attempt to change your mind? And following you around to grocery stores, restaurants, the gym, your place of worship etc? Obviously your workplace or people whose houses you visit would have no right to kick me out either? The government must protect this infringement upon my free speech, no? I mean, I'm not saying anything illegal so you have to allow it everywhere.

bandyaboot 4y ago

That’s a really roundabout way of saying “The government isn’t allowed to infringe on speech (generally speaking), therefore the government should be compelled to intervene when a private entity infinges on the principles of free speech on its private property”. It’s a non sequitur, and even as non sequiturs go, this is a particularly unserious one.

tomohawk 4y ago
The federal government can, and will intervene when state or local governments infringe on peoples rights. It happens all the time. So the federal government is already doing way more than just not infringing. It's also protecting. Twitter, Facebook, and other monopolies have more power than state or local governments to infringe, so obviously the federal government should intervene to protect people's rights.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Twitter, Facebook, et al. have the power to arrest you and seize your home?

triceratops 4y ago

> does that not also extend to the government actively protecting that right from those who would seek to infringe on it? Surely then you'd be ok with me camping on your lawn day and night with a sign to attempt to change your mind? And following you around to grocery stores, restaurants, the gym, your place of worship etc? Obviously your workplace or people whose houses you visit would have no right to kick me out either? The government must protect this infringement upon my free speech, no? I mean, I'm not saying anything illegal so you have to allow it everywhere.