3 ms·

Privatized censorship is also known as the freedom of association, and a fundamental right both legally in the US, and morally as an inherent human right.

• rcoveson 4y ago
  The fact that it's immoral to infringe freedom of association doens't imply that it is always moral to exercise your right to freedom of association in any way you want. We could all exercise that freedom to refuse to associate with people who are on the wrong side of the $HOT_ISSUE debate and gradually degrade the social fabric until it tears. For many possible values of $HOT_ISSUE, I think we can agree that would be wrong. So even though you aren't required to associate any more liberally than you desire--and requiring you to do so would be wrong--it's still true that we need most people to be quite liberal in their associations for this (or any) country to work. That's all a long way of saying that it's valid to complain about private censorship. It's (generally) not okay to propose that we send in the troops to stop private censorship, but it's fine and good to complain when it happens. It's no different from arguing that some{body|entity} should be nicer, or more careful, or even stricter, for that matter.
  • Zetice 4y ago
    Oh yeah it's for sure valid to criticize people for exercising their freedoms, but it's not okay to prevent them from doing so. My pet peeve however is, "They shouldn't do that" very often leads to, "We shouldn't let them do that." though, which I think we agree is a huge problem.
• Tommstein 4y ago
  I wonder if you would hold that stance if they put out a sign that said "no blacks/gays/whites/whatever."
  • soundnote 4y ago
    The Irish need not apply.
  • Zetice 4y ago
    Nope, cuz I think protecting specific classes of people, grouped by involuntary traits, is important.
    • Tommstein 4y ago
      Oh, so now we have terms and conditions on "Privatized censorship is also known as the freedom of association, and a fundamental right both legally in the US, and morally as an inherent human right." Sounded pretty absolute there for a second while it was conveniently the kind of censorship you approve of.
      • Zetice 4y ago
        I see it as there is more than one human, and when my rights and your rights come into conflict, there's moral precedence that favors non-discrimination over absolutism.
        • gameman144 4y ago
          I'm curious, how is this not the case with the freedom of speech example then? Shouldn't non-discrimination take precedence under your model?
          • Zetice 4y ago
            Discrimination in what? I'm not sure I understand which right the injury in the speech that would interfere with. I call you a name, have I prevented you from expressing your rights? I wouldn't think so.
• jabradoodle 4y ago
  People will argue this up until the point a global platform approaching a monopoly censors their politics.