Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Machismo]

I'm not sure. Go build your own financial institutions is a useful rebuttal.

I'm not sure shilling for Nazis is the argument that you think it is.

[Krakan]

I'm not sure shilling for Nazis is the argument that you think it is.

Protecting free speech is by definition protecting the most vile portions of it. You can't have it without that. As a little addendum because someone will feel compelled to state the obvious there does need to be some restrictions aka dont yell fire in a theater.

[Machismo]

Protecting free speech is by definition protecting the most vile portions of it. You can't have it without that.

Pro tip... you are opposing free speech, and the 1st Amendment.

Websties are free to not associate with Nazis.

[Edge-]

Protecting free speech is by definition protecting the most vile portions of it. You can't have it without that.

What's the solution, then? Legally obligating businesses to work with everyone who wants to work with them?

[Krakan]

Pro tip... you are opposing free speech, and the 1st Amendment.

Websties are free to not associate with Nazis.

I hope when these tools are turned on you, you fall on your sword without complaint.

[Machismo]

I hope when these tools are turned on you, you fall on your sword without complaint.

I'll take my business elsewhere.

I hope in the future, you stop shilling for Nazis in the name of opposing free speech.

[Krakan]

What's the solution, then? Legally obligating businesses to work with everyone who wants to work with them?

I would say yes. Much like the bakery with the homosexual cake I think allowing discrimination based off of beliefs or nationality is a bad idea barring of course if they are attempting to do something illegal.

Hate speech laws throw weird wrenches into the debate.

[Machismo]

I would say yes. Much like the bakery with the homosexual cake I think allowing discrimination based off of beliefs or nationality is a bad idea barring of course if they are attempting to do something illegal.

Hate speech laws throw weird wrenches into the debate.

To be clear, you think someone should be able to come into your home, yell racist shit at your family, and you should have no legal recourse to kick them off your property?

[Krakan]

To be clear, you think someone should be able to come into your home, yell racist shit at your family, and you should have no legal recourse to kick them off your property?

No but my home isn't a business nor a non physical media platform. I don't think your grasping that media sites are not physical dwellings given this absurd example.

[Machismo]

No but my home isn't a business nor a non physical media platform. I don't think your grasping that media sites are not physical dwellings given this absurd example.

It's private property, just like theirs.

SO, you want to have a liberty that you want to deny someone else. It's weird that you think a Jewish business owner should be forced to serve Nazis.

[Krakan]

It's private property, just like theirs.

SO, you want to have a liberty that you want to deny someone else. It's weird that you think a Jewish business owner should be forced to serve Nazis.

It's not. One is a physical private dwelling the other is a non physical commercial entity.

While maybe not being completely different those are pretty massive differences.

As for your second example...yes I don't think businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on ideology. If the nazi is a paying customer and behaved he should be served as any other.

[Machismo]

It's not. One is a physical private dwelling the other is a non physical commercial entity.

While maybe not being completely different those are pretty massive differences.

It's. Private. Property.

You'd force a Jewish business owner to serve Nazis.

You'd force a black business owner to serve KKK members, even in their hoods.

[Endus]

What's the solution, then? Legally obligating businesses to work with everyone who wants to work with them?

I mean, you could go the same direction as most of the developed world, where hate speech isn't protected speech.

I'm pretty sure that's not where Krakan thinks this is going, though.

No but my home isn't a business nor a non physical media platform. I don't think your grasping that media sites are not physical dwellings given this absurd example.

Then make it your family-owned storefront. Otherwise, same example. You're saying you have to put up with the customer screaming racial epithets at your family, just let them stay there, shouting, because kicking them out is an infringement of their freedoms?

[Krakan]

It's. Private. Property.

You'd force a Jewish business owner to serve Nazis.

You'd force a black business owner to serve KKK members, even in their hoods.

Yes much like I would force nazis to serve jews... I don't get the angle your going for here.

[Machismo]

Yes much like I would force nazis to serve jews... I don't get the angle your going for here.

It's weird how much you hate the First Amendment.

[Krakan]

I mean, you could go the same direction as most of the developed world, where hate speech isn't protected speech.

I'm pretty sure that's not where Krakan thinks this is going, though.



Then make it your family-owned storefront. Otherwise, same example. You're saying you have to put up with the customer screaming racial epithets at your family, just let them stay there, shouting, because kicking them out is an infringement of their freedoms?

Depends am I selling a media platform for airing opinions or is my store front a restaurant?

If it's the former of course if it's the latter no. I don't get why every example given goes way out of the way to ignore what media platforms are... is it because once you bring it up this argument doesn't hold any water?

[Machismo]

Depends am I selling a media platform for airing opinions or is my store front a restaurant?

If it's the former of course if it's the latter no. I don't get why every example given goes way out of the way to ignore what media platforms are... is it because once you bring it up this argument doesn't hold any water?

Nope, it's your fucking property.

According to you, anyone could come into your business, yell racist shit at your employees, and you couldn't legally kick them out.

Thanks for also confirming you'd force a Christian website to host gay porn.

[Endus]

Depends am I selling a media platform for airing opinions or is my store front a restaurant?

If it's the former of course if it's the latter no. I don't get why every example given goes way out of the way to ignore what media platforms are... is it because once you bring it up this argument doesn't hold any water?

And yet, you can't explain why there should be a difference, other than that you support hate speech and want it to be uniquely protected.

These media platforms are not, and have not at any point ever been, public platforms where anyone could vent any opinion they wished to without consequence. That's not the service they ever offered anyone. It's a lie you're making up, because you can't make your argument if you stick to the truth.

[Krakan]

And yet, you can't explain why there should be a difference, other than that you support hate speech and want it to be uniquely protected.

These media platforms are not, and have not at any point ever been, public platforms where anyone could vent any opinion they wished to without consequence. That's not the service they ever offered anyone. It's a lie you're making up, because you can't make your argument if you stick to the truth.

I feel it's so clearly evident that it baffles me it isn't obvious...

Ones a platform for airing opinions... it makes sense it is used for airing opinions...its the express purpose for its existence.

The other serves food. It would disrupt it's very function.

You can now try to retroactively try to rebrand but a social media platform form is but it's rather apparent your grasping for straws.

[Machismo]

I feel it's so clearly evident that it baffles me it isn't obvious...

Ones a platform for airing opinions... it makes sense it is used for airing opinions...its the express purpose for its existence.

The other serves food. It would disrupt it's very function.

You can now try to retroactively try to rebrand but a social media platform form is but it's rather apparent your grasping for straws.

You don't get to tell a private company what their function is.

If their function is "We don't fucking serve Nazis," then too fucking bad.