Should Hateful/Racist/Sexist Comments Be 'Banned' On Social Media?

[Deleted]

A telephone company cannot refuse service because they don't like the things you say over their phone line, so no, your example is not accurate.

No but they cant refuse you a subscription plan because you are black either.

[satimy]

The real question is who watches the watchmen? Or who determines what is racist

[lonely zergling]

If you ban them, then what is left of social media?

[BannedForViews]

Isn't that because they are not supposed to be monitoring your communications?

Or you know, because of freedom of speech, and it being against the law for them to censor you.

- - - Updated - - -

The real question is who watches the watchmen? Or who determines what is racist

Wasn't that Doctor Manhattan?

[Kathandira]

Or you know, because of freedom of speech, and it being against the law for them to censor you.

Only if it is government run, or funded though.

[Forogil]

Only if it is government run, or funded though.

Not entirely correct. There can also be other laws. For ISPs in e.g. the US they now have to abide by net neutrality based on their status as common carriers.

That also limits their ability to censor speech on their platform (not only based on who provides the video - but also based on the contents).

[Kathandira]

Not entirely correct. There can also be other laws. For ISPs in e.g. the US they now have to abide by net neutrality based on their status as common carriers.

That also limits their ability to censor speech on their platform (not only based on who provides the video - but also based on the contents).

Interesting. I'll have to look further into that.

My stance is pretty simple. Private entities should be permitted to censor anything they please. Public entities (government funded) should not be able to ban any speech.

[triplesdsu]

Who determines what is offensive

The company running the site. It's their property, their rules.

[vindicatorx]

The people who are offended by it.

Everything offends someone so should we just end communicating with others or should we tell people to grow up and deal with it?

[Deleted]

Interesting. I'll have to look further into that.

My stance is pretty simple. Private entities should be permitted to censor anything they please. Public entities (government funded) should not be able to ban any speech.

But what if Facebook and Twitter censored all gay or black people

Surely you would have a problem with that

[Kathandira]

But what if Facebook and Twitter censored all gay or black people

Surely you would have a problem with that

Sure. I would stop using their product. But that is their choice if they want to do that. I can't, and won't stop them from their decision if that is what they want to do.

The way I see freedom of speech is this. You are free to say anything you want and the government cannot stop you. But society can ignore you, and stop associating with you.

If FB or Twitter decided to censor people based on their skin color or sexual preference, they would lose users, and funding. They are free to do it, but they would suffer social and financial consequences.

[Zethras]

The people who are offended by it.

By that logic, everything is offensive these days. So social media should just go away.

[BannedForViews]

Interesting. I'll have to look further into that.

My stance is pretty simple. Private entities should be permitted to censor anything they please. Public entities (government funded) should not be able to ban any speech.

Free speech is a universal right (unlike, you know, healthcare). Private entites that are truly private should be able to, but private companies are nevertheless public "entities" and should not be allowed to discrimate on the bases of speec anymore than the basis of sex, race, religion, etc.

for example, speech is not restricted to words you say at the moment. Your political offiliation is "speech" and it is protected. Mcdonalds cannot bar replicans without facing a lawsuit they will almost certainly lose. The only time this has shown to not be true is when one of your protected rights is infringed on, like religion, and even then it is tenuous.

i find it shocking how many of you would cry from the hill tops over twitter banning gays just cause gay, but think that they should have the right to censor speech, even if it were in fact banning gay speech. As if there is some huge moral distinction between banning a person for who they are instead of what thy stand for, instead of realizing they are one in the same.

[Kathandira]

I find it shocking how many of you would cry from the hill tops over twitter banning gays just cause gay, but think that they should have the right to censor speech

I can be enraged over what someone said or did, but still honor their constitutional rights.

Now, if people were calling for new laws regarding freedom of speech, I would fight that tooth and nail.

Further explanation is a few posts up in response to Xarim's question.

[krunksmash]

that wall is TL/DR but I don't need to because of something called freedom of speech. if you wand to post hateful, racist, sexist, etc comments on social media then what ever. anyone who does not want to see it can click the wondrous thing called an ignore/block button.

[BannedForViews]

Sure. I would stop using their product. But that is their choice if they want to do that. I can't, and won't stop them from their decision if that is what they want to do.

The way I see freedom of speech is this. You are free to say anything you want and the government cannot stop you. But society can ignore you, and stop associating with you.

If FB or Twitter decided to censor people based on their skin color or sexual preference, they would lose users, and funding. They are free to do it, but they would suffer social and financial consequences.

Would it be safe to say then that you support the right of private businesses to pay their employees any wage they want as long as the employee agrees to work for it? Even say 3 dollars an hour?

[Snorkles]

A private company banning people based on Religion, Race or Sexuality would fall foul of discrimination laws in most (if not all) Western countries.

If you say something racist on Twitter you're falling foul of their own ToS (Which you agree to when signing up) so you can be quite rightly banned.

So really it has fuck all to do with Freedom of Speech or anything like that, you use a service, you agree to abide by the rules set by the provider of said service. You break the rules you get banned.

[Kathandira]

Would it be safe to say then that you support the right of private businesses to pay their employees any wage they want as long as the employee agrees to work for it? Even say 3 dollars an hour?

Not part of the topic. We are talking about censorship.

[BannedForViews]

Not part of the topic. We are talking about censorship.

How is wage discrimination, i.e. minimum wage law, not censorship? You are censoring a persons natural right to barter their labor?

[Kathandira]

How is wage discrimination, i.e. minimum wage law, not censorship? You are censoring a persons natural right to barter their labor?

Come on, you know that is just semantics. We are talking about censoring speech specifically. I'd rather discuss that than wages. Discussing wages is a whole other 10 pages lol.