do you think freedom of speech should apply to a private membership forum?

[Endus]

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy on the issue of private property and ownership.

There is no "hypocrisy" here, there's just you failing to grasp that free speech laws and public accomodations laws are two separate things to begin with.

Saying that the law is the law... is not a justification for your stance, it's citing that there is a law in existence.

Literally not what I said at any point.

If you think that a website should be able to choose its customers, then why can't a restaurant do the exact same thing? If they have authority to kick those off the website they don't want there, why can another private business not do the same?

Because a restaurant is a public accommodation, and a website is not. The rationale is all spelled out in the Civil Rights Act, if you want the American context. Pretending that doesn't exist isn't a valid stance.

In the end, you don't give a shit about private property, if it means being able to push your views onto them. Unlike you, I would never force a Jewish person to serve a Nazi, nor would I force a gay business owner to serve the Westboro Baptist Church. You seem to think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to a private business.

1> "Nazis" aren't a protected class, so you'd be free to refuse service to the Nazi.
2> The WBC choice is explicitly chosen to be alarmist. Change it to "Jewish business owner" and "Muslim", and it becomes clear why the law protects the customer.

And 3> If you don't want to run a public accommodation and abide by those regulations, you're free not to. Nobody was "forced" into any of that, they agreed to abide by those rules.

Also 4> This is a discussion about public accommodations, which have absolutely nothing to do with free speech rights. Since your rights to speak are in no way infringed upon by a property owner excluding you from their property, you don't have any valid position to claim that speech deserves similar protection as those protected classes.

A gay black transgender customer being kicked out of the only grocery store in a hundred-mile radius is a problem, because they can't feasibly get food elsewhere.

The same person being kicking out for shouting about how the store owners are "commies" can keep shouting about how much they're commies on the street outside; they've been denied nothing.

[Venant]

Which is a false premise, because denying someone access to your property in no way results in "less free speech", because the person you've denied access to is just as free to speak as they were before you removed them. Their right to freedom of speech has not been affected in any way whatsoever.

Freedom of speech is about content, not location.
Property rights let you deny access to people you don't want using your property.

The two don't conflict to begin with. Kicking someone off your property doesn't affect their freedom of speech in any way, because they can keep spreading the same message in the public spaces outside to their heart's content.

That's how we derive the "ought", without reference to what "is". That our "ought" lines up with what "is" is happy circumstance.

Let me give you an example of where you seem to be making the mistake:

An ambulance is taking a man to the hospital and the road has washed away, their only option is to drive across a small portion of your property. Assuming that this will cause no damage to your property, should you allow the ambulance to pass?

The argument you are repeatedly making is: 'well no I shouldn't let the ambulance pass because it is my property.'

However, such an argument does not address the question, you are merely stating the fact over and over that it is your property, you are not making an argument as to whether or not you should allow the ambulance to pass. One might come away from such an encounter believing that the property owner has some ulterior motive for stopping the ambulance from passing.

It ultimately isn't an argument to say 'I have the ability to do this, therefore I will do this'. Saying that your 'ought' is in line with your 'is' makes no sense, its like saying 'I have a gun so I ought to shoot somebody', that's completely irrational.

[Teleros]

If you question whether companies should be able to censor content on their own sites, then that is an issue.

Like I said, it depends on what the site is used for. If Twitter wants to host political discussions, it shouldn't be able to muzzle people on the right. If Twitter decides it wants to be a politics-free platform, by all means go ahead. Just don't use double standards to try and screw over anyone to the right of Mao Zedong - or for that matter, to the left of Margaret Thatcher.

I completely understand the idea of a company being a private entity and all that, but like I said, this is too important. If I can't find like-minded people because Google hides the search results, or Facebook bans groups based on "hate speech" etc, then frankly that's a far bigger attack on freedom of speech than ordering Facebook to not intervene.

Freedom of speech is required for Western democracies to survive in the long run, because if people can't debate things freely and openly, then you'll find they will resort to violence sooner or later, and democracy won't long survive if elections turn into open fighting on the streets. If that means treading on the toes of a few companies who'd rather virtue signal about how they're clamping down on "hate speech", screw those companies and the cowardly, spineless, totalitarian hacks that staff them.

[Endus]

Let me give you an example of where you seem to be making the mistake:

An ambulance is taking a man to the hospital and the road has washed away, their only option is to drive across a small portion of your property. Assuming that this will cause no damage to your property, should you allow the ambulance to pass?

The argument you are repeatedly making is: 'well no I shouldn't let the ambulance pass because it is my property.'

However, such an argument does not address the question, you are merely stating the fact over and over that it is your property, you are not making an argument as to whether or not you should allow the ambulance to pass. One might come away from such an encounter believing that the property owner has some ulterior motive for stopping the ambulance from passing.

This isn't an example that works, because that ambulance has the right to cross your property anyway, due to exigent circumstances.

If, however, there's a local road out of town that gets washed away, and the only route around is through my property, I'm free to tell people "no", because they don't have any comparable justification for overruling my property rights. That's where your argument breaks down, because the moment you move it to "the average person" and away from "an ambulance with an emergency need to cross your property", it no longer holds up. You're relying on those special circumstances being expanded to ALL circumstances, and you don't have a valid argument as to why.

It ultimately isn't an argument to say 'I have the ability to do this, therefore I will do this'. Saying that your 'ought' is in line with your 'is' makes no sense, its like saying 'I have a gun so I ought to shoot somebody', that's completely irrational.

No, it's like saying "I have a gun, so I ought to handle it responsibly". Don't use weighted examples to create emotional appeals.

[Revi]

Under certain conditions, yes.

I think the idea that only the government is capable of oppression is wrong, so I think laws designed to protect against oppression shouldn't exclusively be about the government.

For this forum I don't think free speech should apply, but when a forum grows large enough to where it significantly impacts public discourse, like Facebook and Twitter, I think some protections of free speech would be a good thing.

[Machismo]

There is no "hypocrisy" here, there's just you failing to grasp that free speech laws and public accomodations laws are two separate things to begin with.



Literally not what I said at any point.



Because a restaurant is a public accommodation, and a website is not. The rationale is all spelled out in the Civil Rights Act, if you want the American context. Pretending that doesn't exist isn't a valid stance.


1> "Nazis" aren't a protected class, so you'd be free to refuse service to the Nazi.
2> The WBC choice is explicitly chosen to be alarmist. Change it to "Jewish business owner" and "Muslim", and it becomes clear why the law protects the customer.

And 3> If you don't want to run a public accommodation and abide by those regulations, you're free not to. Nobody was "forced" into any of that, they agreed to abide by those rules.

Also 4> This is a discussion about public accommodations, which have absolutely nothing to do with free speech rights. Since your rights to speak are in no way infringed upon by a property owner excluding you from their property, you don't have any valid position to claim that speech deserves similar protection as those protected classes.

A gay black transgender customer being kicked out of the only grocery store in a hundred-mile radius is a problem, because they can't feasibly get food elsewhere.

The same person being kicking out for shouting about how the store owners are "commies" can keep shouting about how much they're commies on the street outside; they've been denied nothing.

Your stance is inconsistent, you are merely citing the existence of a law as the reasoning for your inconsistency. If that's the case, then you cannot complain if a company refuses to serve a gay person, in any state where they are not actually a protected class. After all, there is no law restrict such an action.

A restaurant is a private business, just like a website, just like a television studio. Your stance is hypocritical, at least have the decency to admit it. In moist states, gay people are not a protected class, therefore, you should have no problem if someone refuses to serve them. Of course, on that note, you should also have no problem with any sovereign laws that are set, since you are citing the existence of a law (an inconsistent one at that). If those "public accommodations refused to serve Nazis or the Westboro Baptist Church, you would be outraged, right? You believe in private businesses... until you don't... got it. You think people should be able to refuse service, until you don't... got it.

If that very same gay black transgender customer were kicked out of a grocery store, where there were another next door, you would have no problem with it, right? Since youa re stressing that there is no viable alternative, that must be the argument you are trying to make.

In the end, it's hypocrisy... Sad!

[Noradin]

A restaurant is a private business, just like a website, just like a television studio.

Your problem is that you think "private business" as shorthand for "privately owned business" is the opposite of "public business" which is a shorthand for "business open to the general public".
That is simply not true. It can be both.

[Endus]

Your stance is inconsistent, you are merely citing the existence of a law as the reasoning for your inconsistency.

To reiterate; this is false. I have never cited the existence of the law as my reasoning. I have pointed you at the law's justification, if you want to understand its justification.

If that's the case, then you cannot complain if a company refuses to serve a gay person, in any state where they are not actually a protected class. After all, there is no law restrict such an action.

Since that isn't my argument, this conclusion doesn't follow.

I support public accommodations laws protecting certain classes, on its own merits.

A restaurant is a private business, just like a website, just like a television studio. Your stance is hypocritical, at least have the decency to admit it.

The former is a public accommodation, which is a specific kind of business. So there's no hypocrisy; there's just you willfully ignoring this distinction.

You think people should be able to refuse service, until you don't... got it.

Here's an analogy for why this is a bad line of argument.

I could extend your same irrational argument to, say, self-defense laws. "You think people shouldn't be allowed to harm others, until you don't, you're clearly pro-murder." That's the same non-argument you're trying to make; it ignores that context varies, and that context affects our views on any particular point.

If that very same gay black transgender customer were kicked out of a grocery store, where there were another next door, you would have no problem with it, right? Since youa re stressing that there is no viable alternative, that must be the argument you are trying to make.

Nope. Not the argument at all. That was an example that demonstrated the motivation, not the sole reason.

[Deleted]

You think people should be able to refuse service, until you don't... got it.

What's hypocritical about that?. They just have a red line.
I think you should be able to upset people, but not physically. I'm ok with upsetting people until I don't.

[Machismo]

To reiterate; this is false. I have never cited the existence of the law as my reasoning. I have pointed you at the law's justification, if you want to understand its justification.



Since that isn't my argument, this conclusion doesn't follow.

I support public accommodations laws protecting certain classes, on its own merits.



The former is a public accommodation, which is a specific kind of business. So there's no hypocrisy; there's just you willfully ignoring this distinction.



Here's an analogy for why this is a bad line of argument.

I could extend your same irrational argument to, say, self-defense laws. "You think people shouldn't be allowed to harm others, until you don't, you're clearly pro-murder." That's the same non-argument you're trying to make; it ignores that context varies, and that context affects our views on any particular point.



Nope. Not the argument at all. That was an example that demonstrated the motivation, not the sole reason.

You literally just cited the existence of laws creating protected classes as the justification. Yes, you just did that. If they are a protected class, then some piece of legislation made it so. Your entire basis is inconsistent, because you do not wish to apply it equally. That's hypocrisy, the sooner you realize it, the better.

- - - Updated - - -

What's hypocritical about that?. They just have a red line.
I think you should be able to upset people, but not physically. I'm ok with upsetting people until I don't.

It's hypocritical to say that a company should be able to turn away a custoemr, in order to protect their freedom of choice, then also support not allowing that freedom of choice, when a business turns away a customer.

- - - Updated - - -

Your problem is that you think "private business" as shorthand for "privately owned business" is the opposite of "public business" which is a shorthand for "business open to the general public".
That is simply not true. It can be both.

We were discussing private property. Regardless, it's a privately-owned business. Sometimes he thinks they should be able to refuse service, sometimes he does not. That's hypocrisy.

[Xeones]

as the title asks, do you think it applies or do you think it should apply if it doesnt already?

What...? So your way to make "freedom of speech" apply to private forums is to force them to publish speech they disagree with? What?

How is that a freedom of any kind?

[Endus]

You literally just cited the existence of laws creating protected classes as the justification. Yes, you just did that.

No. I didn't.

You seem to not understand that pointing to laws as an example of an implementation of an ideological viewpoint is not the same as using that law as the justification for said viewpoint.

I'm citing the laws because I agree with their justification, and that justification is also what backs my own views. You keep acting like I'm using the laws themselves, and that's false.

If they are a protected class, then some piece of legislation made it so.

This is where you pretend, falsely, that laws can never have valid reasons for existing.

Yes, you need a law to make something a "protected class", because that's a legal term. The idea that members of those classes should be protected is not derived from the legislation, however, and that's where your argument runs off the rails. You have the entire concept of legislation backwards, somehow, thinking that principles are derived from legislation, when it's the reverse.

It's hypocritical to say that a company should be able to turn away a custoemr, in order to protect their freedom of choice, then also support not allowing that freedom of choice, when a business turns away a customer.

No, it isn't. Because the two positions are;
1> A company should be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of the content of their speech, and
2> A company should not be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of their membership in a protected class

No one has made either the argument that no one should ever be denied service for any reason at all, nor the argument that one can be denied service for any reason whatsoever. Trying to make both of those arguments at the same time is what would be "hypocrisy". Making distinctions on who to deny service to, based on informed context, is not "hypocrisy", no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

We were discussing private property. Regardless, it's a privately-owned business. Sometimes he thinks they should be able to refuse service, sometimes he does not. That's hypocrisy.

Much like how sometimes, you can't shoot someone in the chest with a gun (because they made a rude gesture, because their baby is crying too loud, because they're in front of you in the line at the theater and you don't want to wait), but other times, you CAN shoot someone in the chest with a gun (in self-defense as they're attacking you with a knife, when you're both soldiers on opposite sides of a war in a war zone, when the gun is a paintball gun and you're both playing paintball, etc).

Context matters one hell of a lot, and pretending it doesn't is willful ignorance.

[Machismo]

Not necessarily. There are definitely logically consistent positions you could take to think they should be able to refuse service in some cases and not others. For instance, if you do not think a private entity should be able to deny a person service if they have genuine need of that service and do not have another reasonable option to get sufficiently similar service elsewhere, that would mean if you run the only grocery store within 50 miles that you can't deny people service on a whim, but you would still be able to deny them use of your store as a platform for their speech, as it is not necessary that they do it in the grocery store and have other options available, including the public property nearest the store.

Once again, that would mean the argument should be based on genuine need, and not on protected status. If someone were to make that argument (and use it as the basis), then that is a much better argument to make. However, very few every do that, because the number of real-life examples for such a thing are almost nonexistent.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I didn't.

You seem to not understand that pointing to laws as an example of an implementation of an ideological viewpoint is not the same as using that law as the justification for said viewpoint.

I'm citing the laws because I agree with their justification, and that justification is also what backs my own views. You keep acting like I'm using the laws themselves, and that's false.



This is where you pretend, falsely, that laws can never have valid reasons for existing.

Yes, you need a law to make something a "protected class", because that's a legal term. The idea that members of those classes should be protected is not derived from the legislation, however, and that's where your argument runs off the rails. You have the entire concept of legislation backwards, somehow, thinking that principles are derived from legislation, when it's the reverse.



No, it isn't. Because the two positions are;
1> A company should be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of the content of their speech, and
2> A company should not be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of their membership in a protected class

If you're pretending that anyone has made the argument that no one should ever be turned away, then you never understood the arguments that you were presented with, and chose to build and attack a straw man instead.



Much like how sometimes, you can't shoot someone in the chest with a gun (because they annoyed you slightly), but other times, you CAN shoot someone in the chest with a gun (in self-defense as they're attacking you with a knife, when you're both soldiers on opposite sides of a war in a war zone, when the gun is a paintball gun and you're both playing paintball, etc).

Context matters one hell of a lot, and pretending it doesn't is willful ignorance.

I understand that a law may have a valid reason, but once again, it can still be inconsistent. You happen to be taking that stance. You are setting qualifiers on why someone should, and should not be able to refuse service, and it's based on the existence of a law. That is what I have been saying it all along. So, since gay poeople are not a protected class in most states, you should have no problem if someone refuses to serve gay people in those states.

[Noradin]

We were discussing private property. Regardless, it's a privately-owned business. Sometimes he thinks they should be able to refuse service, sometimes he does not. That's hypocrisy.

You were discussing by whom property was owned.
That is why you keep missing the point.

[Machismo]

You were discussing property.
That is why you keep missing the point.

I was discussing it, as were others long before me, including Endus.

[Endus]

I understand that a law may have a valid reason, but once again, it can still be inconsistent. You happen to be taking that stance. You are setting qualifiers on why someone should, and should not be able to refuse service, and it's based on the existence of a law. That is what I have been saying it all along.

You haven't even begun to make a case for inconsistency. You've failed to grasp my argument, and insisted on attacking a straw man instead.

No, my position on who should and should not be denied service is not "based on the existence of a law". That's false, for at least the third time. That's your straw man, not my argument. My position is based on principles. They happen to be similar principles to those that informed the law in question, which is why my stance and the law are in general agreement, but that doesn't mean anything I believe was at any point derived from the law.

That's nonsense you've made up in your own head, and has no bearing on anything.

So, since gay poeople are not a protected class in most states, you should have no problem if someone refuses to serve gay people in those states.

If my position were derived solely from the law, this would make sense, and would demonstrate an inconsistency, because the laws themselves are inconsistent.

However, for the fourth time that I will state this, my principles are not derived from any specific law, they are derived from philosophical and sociological precepts, similar to those which informed those particular laws. As such, my views are largely in agreement with such laws, but not entirely. Because my principles are independently arrived at, not built from those laws.

It's a silly-ass straw man that you won't let go, for some reason.

[Machismo]

You haven't even begun to make a case for inconsistency. You've failed to grasp my argument, and insisted on attacking a straw man instead.

No, my position on who should and should not be denied service is not "based on the existence of a law". That's false, for at least the third time. That's your straw man, not my argument. My position is based on principles. They happen to be similar principles to those that informed the law in question, which is why my stance and the law are in general agreement, but that doesn't mean anything I believe was at any point derived from the law.

That's nonsense you've made up in your own head, and has no bearing on anything.



If my position were derived solely from the law, this would make sense, and would demonstrate an inconsistency, because the laws themselves are inconsistent.

However, for the fourth time that I will state this, my principles are not derived from any specific law, they are derived from philosophical and sociological precepts, similar to those which informed those particular laws. As such, my views are largely in agreement with such laws, but not entirely. Because my principles are independently arrived at, not built from those laws.

It's a silly-ass straw man that you won't let go, for some reason.

Your argument is inconsistent, that's the point.

Do you think any business in a state that does not recognize gay people as a protected class should be able to refuse service to gay people? Since they are not a protected class, you support the business being able to refuse service to a gay person, right?

Remember, this is what you said:

"No, it isn't. Because the two positions are;
1> A company should be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of the content of their speech, and
2> A company should not be able to turn away a customer on the grounds of their membership in a protected class"

[Venant]

This isn't an example that works, because that ambulance has the right to cross your property anyway, due to exigent circumstances.

If, however, there's a local road out of town that gets washed away, and the only route around is through my property, I'm free to tell people "no", because they don't have any comparable justification for overruling my property rights. That's where your argument breaks down, because the moment you move it to "the average person" and away from "an ambulance with an emergency need to cross your property", it no longer holds up. You're relying on those special circumstances being expanded to ALL circumstances, and you don't have a valid argument as to why.

No, it's like saying "I have a gun, so I ought to handle it responsibly". Don't use weighted examples to create emotional appeals.

You are still not addressing the topic of the thread. Your claim that my example of the argument breaks down because I am using an ambulance and not just random people is moot. The ambulance example is a direct challenge to your confusion between what you 'can' do and what you 'should' do. If you want to make it just random people crossing your property, then you should stipulate that you have part of your property set aside for letting random people cross, and then make the argument that you 'ought' to discriminate against which people you allow to cross that part of your property.

Lets go through an example that is in line with the question posed on this thread:

You run a forum that is based on a server that is located on an oil rig in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, therefore your forum is not beholden to the laws of any established nation. SHOULD you, as the moderator of this theoretical forum, allow people of different races/ethnic backgrounds/class/gender from yourself, to post on that forum?

[Flatspriest]

Your argument is inconsistent, that's the point.

Do you think any business in a state that does not recognize gay people as a protected class should be able to refuse service to gay people? Since they are not a protected class, you support the business being able to refuse service to a gay person, right?

Recognizing gays as a protected class is already done at the federal level so a state has no say.

[Machismo]

Recognizing gays as a protected class is already done at the federal level so a state has no say.

No, no it is not. Gay people are allowed to get married, but in many states, people can still be discriminated against for being gay. I am currently speaking about the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_r..._United_States