4 ms·
The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the
by Airsinner 3y ago
The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution).
Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people, and as long as those certain people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of innocence.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> government doesn't itself have civil rights Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right. > It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoCorporations are owned by people who do have civil rights.
- jonny_eh 3y agoLet's go more extreme. Tech companies are free to not host Nazi content. The US govt is NOT free to lock someone up for being a Nazi. That's the power of the 1st amendment.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoWhy can I never find you 'Corporations are people' advocates when corporate manslaighter is being discussed, for example when Boeing killed 200 people with a faulty plane?
- jonny_eh 3y agoCorporations are not people. Congress could pass laws saying that tech must host Nazi content. But they haven't.