Free speech takes precedence over individual or group opinions

[niil945]

False. Although that's the original intent, the supreme courts have ruled time and time again that unpopular speech is protected in general. That's why rappers and musicians are allowed to use explicit lyrics on their albums. You must not be old enough to remember the controversy that 2 live crew created when they took this very issue to the U.S. Supreme court and WON. It's NOT just "by the government", its censorship, PERIOD, with the only caveat being that it is in public. Private businesses are free to restrict content in their business/on their websites

#Alternative Facts

[Bodakane]

False. Although that's the original intent, the supreme courts have ruled time and time again that unpopular speech is protected in general. That's why rappers and musicians are allowed to use explicit lyrics on their albums. You must not be old enough to remember the controversy that 2 live crew created when they took this very issue to the U.S. Supreme court and WON. It's NOT just "by the government", its censorship, PERIOD, with the only caveat being that it is in public. Private businesses are free to restrict content in their business/on their websites

2 Live Crew was arrested for obscenity.

Only the government can arrest us.

[Kokolums]

The government has dual mandates that come into conflict.

1. protect a list of freedoms.
2. guard against monopolies.

When it comes to speech, the first amendment protects free speech. On the other hand, you have antitrust laws. United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. So potentially, if Trump decides that the current state of the media (TV, radio, newspapers, books, movies) is overwhelmingly controlled by the democrat party or people who align with the democrat party, and its gotten so out of whack that it longer benefits consumers nor provides fair competition, be could use antitrust laws to "break up the media" in the same way they once broke up Ma Bell and ended the phone monopoly.

People on the right would side with antitrust laws on this issue, and I'm sure those on the left would ignore antitrust laws and side with the first amendment and call for his removal from office.

[Delana]

The first amendment only protects you from being punished by your government. According to the spirit of the law you are welcome to speak your mind, but the 'spirit' of the law does not protect you from the consequences of your speaking your mind from anything but Government. You can't tell your boss to go kill himself and claim first amendment when he fires you. You can't go into a day care and tell all the kids how you are going to bang their moms then claim first amendment when the owner calls the cops on you.

The constitution also says you have the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.

Truth of the matter is had you been born in another country of another race and religion you would of thought that was the superior race/religion/country because you, like many people, are incapable of looking outside their own existence and always put yourself on the highest column of importance and social worth. Everyone does it to the point that one person going out there telling the world that their race/creed/country is the best is ridiculous and infantile at best.

And I suppose you are capable of looking outside your own bubble?

The real issue with free speech here is that the public square, the metaphorical forum of our modern world is online. Twitter, Facebook,youtube, and the like, have de-facto monopolies over certain types of speech. Metaphorically speaking, censoring someone there is the same as censoring Caesar in the Roman Forum, or Lincoln on the campaign trail. Take yourself outside your perspective for a second, and imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Is that power these platforms should have? To drive the political discourse in whatever direction suits them?

They should be treated like ISPs and communication companies. They provide the soapbox. It's not their place to decide who stands up on it.

[Mistame]

"Freedom of speech", as it pertains to law, is protection from government only. There are restrictions on "free speech" where it involves harm in some form or another and those restrictions are implemented as laws. If there is no law prohibiting a certain type of speech or a given scenario, then it inherently falls under "free speech". Outside of that, "free speech" cannot "hinder" or infringe on the "rights" of others. There is no "right" to not be offended. "Hate speech" is shitty, but it's also protected. The only boundaries, outside of those covered by law, are imaginary lines people draw to satisfy their own world view. If you think someone is "infringing" on your "rights" to "free speech" and they're not employed by the government, you're doing it wrong.

The real issue with free speech here is that the public square, the metaphorical forum of our modern world is online. Twitter, Facebook,youtube, and the like, have de-facto monopolies over certain types of speech. Metaphorically speaking, censoring someone there is the same as censoring Caesar in the Roman Forum, or Lincoln on the campaign trail.

A private company restricting certain "viewpoints" or content is not "censorship", nor is it violating anyone's "freedom of speech" as you don't have a right to use their tools for your own expression.

[Delana]

A private company restricting certain "viewpoints" or content is not "censorship", nor is it violating anyone's "freedom of speech" as you don't have a right to use their tools for your own expression.

This is exactly the same thing as a bakery refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. You realize that right? They are refusing to sell certain viewpoints the platform because they disagree. Of course this happens AFTER they have a dominant enough market share that no alternative platforms can possibly compete.

And it's absolutely censorship.

[Deleted]

This is exactly the same thing as a bakery refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. You realize that right? They are refusing to sell certain viewpoints the platform because they disagree. Of course this happens AFTER they have a dominant enough market share that no alternative platforms can possibly compete.

And it's absolutely censorship.

Yes, but see a wedding cake is an essential right, as affirmed in the zeroth amendment to the constitution.

[niil945]

Yes, but see a wedding cake is an essential right, as affirmed in the zeroth amendment to the constitution.

Hogwash. Businesses require licensing which means they have to not discriminate in accordance with local, state, and federally relevant laws.

[Anevers]

The spirit of the first amendment also would seem to protect the people's right to speak their mind and participate in the political process, don't you think?

You're so butthurt you lost a fucking election that you have decided it is okay to inflict violence on those that simply disagree with you. I'm legitimately at a loss. Do you want to live in a democracy or a progressive dictatorship? I suppose the latter can be arranged, but not here. Not without rivers of blood anyway.

I think you implying things about me you have no clue about to paint me in a negative light to better serve your argument. Again you didn't learn anything from our previous discussion, which okay I'm sure you can still have time to learn.

No I don't mind people speaking their minds even if they are Nazis, white supremacists, racists, Islamophobic, Homophobic, or any other type, and true to the First Amendment the government cannot act against them.

However if society decides to check them, that is fine too. Your first amendment right won't stop your boss from canning your arse for going on TV and spouting your beliefs. It won't stop someone from clocking your arse either if you advocate genocide either.

So you want to live in a democracy or a conservative dictatorship?

Desperately trying to make this point. Doesn't help when the other side is in full fucking press to dehumanize the American right. Somewhere along the iine we just stopped having the debate and just skipped straghit to the violence against the opposition. I didn't even know violence was on the list of fucking steps.

Do you not see what the conservative is not all that free from the very same dehumanizing you complain about? I don't really see too many liberal (if any at all) sites or news shows calling conservatism a plague. Yet I see conservative sites calling liberals and liberalism a disease. I find it a bit silly that you complain about your feelings about being your side being dehumanized when the side you support does it and you don't speak out against it, and yet you also engage in it.

[Delana]

Hogwash. Businesses require licensing which means they have to not discriminate in accordance with local, state, and federally relevant laws.

Edit: Clarification as it may seem like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm agreeing with your sarcasm that the post you were quoting was garbage

His sarcasm was agreeing with me bro. As a platform, denying someone the right to speak their mind is more serious than a baker denying them their "right" to a wedding cake.

[Mistame]

This is exactly the same thing as a bakery refusing to bake a gay wedding cake. You realize that right? They are refusing to sell certain viewpoints the platform because they disagree. Of course this happens AFTER they have a dominant enough market share that no alternative platforms can possibly compete.

Um, those are nothing alike.

And it's absolutely censorship.

No, it's absolutely not. Denying someone your platform to express themselves is not "suppressing" their free speech, monopoly or not. They've the right to free expression, but they're not entitled to a platform in which to do so, especially one owned by a private entity.

[Delana]

I think you implying things about me you have no clue about to paint me in a negative light to better serve your argument. Again you didn't learn anything from our previous discussion, which okay I'm sure you can still have time to learn.

No I don't mind people speaking their minds even if they are Nazis, white supremacists, racists, Islamophobic, Homophobic, or any other type, and true to the First Amendment the government cannot act against them.

However if society decides to check them, that is fine too. Your first amendment right won't stop your boss from canning your arse for going on TV and spouting your beliefs. It won't stop someone from clocking your arse either if you advocate genocide either.

So you want to live in a democracy or a conservative dictatorship?

Do you not see what the conservative is not all that free from the very same dehumanizing you complain about? I don't really see too many liberal (if any at all) sites or news shows calling conservatism a plague. Yet I see conservative sites calling liberals and liberalism a disease. I find it a bit silly that you complain about your feelings about being your side being dehumanized when the side you support does it and you don't speak out against it, and yet you also engage in it.

They're equating conservatism (or even Trumpism, which is more center right than, for example, Ted Cruz), as racist, misogynistic, etc. I've NEVER seen someone on the right advocate for a liberal to be fired because they are a liberal. Everyone and their brother is calling for Trump supporters to lose their jobs because they dare speak their mind. I guess it's their prerogative, but it's a shitty thing to do. Most of us just dabble in politics.

I think progressivism is bad political philosophy. I think it's a flawed ideology. Maybe so deeply flawed that some people on my side question their sanity. That said, I don't think that progressives are bad people. Misguided maybe.

As far as I can tell, progressives think I'm both misguided AND evil for disagreeing. That's the difference between the two as far as I can see.

[ro9ue]

Per the title, I'd like to discuss the growing trend in America to try and censor views that some people find disagreeable. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment as any speech that does not threaten or guarantee physical harm against someone. Let's discuss how important this right is to having a free society.

This should be obvious and it's likely only those who have forgotten history think it should be different.

[Xeones]

They're equating conservatism (or even Trumpism, which is more center right than, for example, Ted Cruz), as racist, misogynistic, etc. I've NEVER seen someone on the right advocate for a liberal to be fired because they are a liberal. Everyone and their brother is calling for Trump supporters to lose their jobs because they dare speak their mind. I guess it's their prerogative, but it's a shitty thing to do. Most of us just dabble in politics.

I think progressivism is bad political philosophy. I think it's a flawed ideology. Maybe so deeply flawed that some people on my side question their sanity. That said, I don't think that progressives are bad people. Misguided maybe.

As far as I can tell, progressives think I'm both misguided AND evil for disagreeing. That's the difference between the two as far as I can see.

Are you trying to say you've seen people be fired just for being right wing?

[niil945]

His sarcasm was agreeing with me bro. As a platform, denying someone the right to speak their mind is more serious than a baker denying them their "right" to a wedding cake.

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'll remove my edit since it doesn't apply.

Is it though? A business that's open to the public must demonstrate they are complying with anti-discrimination laws by not discriminating against people based on protected classes. That's application of the law.

People or businesses denying someone the right to speak their mind is just this:

[Mistame]

Pretty much covers it.

[Delana]

No, it's absolutely not. Denying someone your platform to express themselves is not "suppressing" their free speech, monopoly or not. They've the right to free expression, but they're not entitled to a platform in which to do so, especially one owned by a private entity.

They are an institution suppressing the public communications of their political opponents because they believe it to be politically incorrect, harmful, objectionable, etc. Read the definition of censorship I posted above.

Please explain to me how this is different than a gay cake. I think that if you advertise that you're going to bake a cake for a given price, you should bake a cake for anybody who offers you that price. If you are happy to provide a platform for free (really advertising revenue and analytics data), then you should do that for anybody. To deny some people and not others because you dislike them is discrimination. Pretty simple.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'll remove my edit since it doesn't apply.

Is it though? A business that's open to the public must demonstrate they are complying with anti-discrimination laws by not discriminating against people based on protected classes. That's application of the law.

People or businesses denying someone the right to speak their mind is just this:

Well fuck me. I'm not a member of a protected class.

If Facebook was censoring BLM, you would be flipping a fit. I would too.

I still for the life of me can't figure out how protected classes isn't racism. How dare the white man speak his mind.

[Taneras]

I still for the life of me can't figure out how protected classes isn't racism. How dare the white man speak his mind.

Protected classes aren't specific races, its race in general. It's not specific ages, its any age. The same goes for disabilities and any other demographic included in protected classes. I don't understand religion being included, though, as its something you can change (whereas the others you're locked into (a black man can't stop being black or male).

I don't like the application of this law outside of public positions and offices, I think a business owner should have the right to deny service to anyone they want to, but that's not the law.

[Endus]

Well fuck me. I'm not a member of a protected class.

If Facebook was censoring BLM, you would be flipping a fit. I would too.

I still for the life of me can't figure out how protected classes isn't racism. How dare the white man speak his mind.

So you just straight-up don't understand what "protected classes" are, then.

Here's a tip. "Black" isn't a protected class. "Race" is a protected class. It protects white employees just as much as it protects black employees.

[niil945]

Well fuck me. I'm not a member of a protected class.

If Facebook was censoring BLM, you would be flipping a fit. I would too.

I still for the life of me can't figure out how protected classes isn't racism. How dare the white man speak his mind.

Actually I wouldn't because they are a private business entity and aren't required by law to allow anyone and everyone a platform to spew whatever they want.

In regards to protected classes I have no idea what you're talking about. Protected classes simply means you can't treat people different from others based on those specific protected classes. It has nothing to do with being racist and everything to do with preventing racism, sexism, etc. It applies in the baker scenario because it's the law. It doesn't apply in regards to Twitter banning you because you do not have the right to "free speech" on Twitter. There's nothing in the law that compels Twitter to allow you to speak your mind and not interfere. They have the exact opposite right, the right to shut you down if they don't like what you're saying. This applies to prettymuch everyone and any business aside from the government. It's not complicated unless you're intentionally being daft.