Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Krakan]

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.

I'm not...they are telling me their function. You also can't discriminate service based on ideology...

[Machismo]

I'm not...they are telling me their function. You also can't discriminate service based on ideology...

And they are saying they don't serve Nazis.

Too fucking bad.

Show me the law that says you cannot discriminate against Nazis. I'll wait.

[Krakan]

And they are saying they don't serve Nazis.

Too fucking bad.

Show me the law that says you cannot discriminate against Nazis. I'll wait.

You can't discriminate based on ideology or race...its not some weird unknown law...

[Endus]

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.

Why does that difference matter?

The social media platform never allowed you to air any opinion you wanted to. They've always had restrictions on how their services could be used.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't discriminate based on ideology or race...its not some weird unknown law...

Go on, link me to the law barring discrimination based on ideology.

[Edge-]

You can't discriminate based on ideology

Yes you absolutely can. Political party or "ideology" is not a protected class, nor should it be.

[Machismo]

You can't discriminate based on ideology or race...its not some weird unknown law...

Show me the law that says you cannot discriminate based on ideology.

How much time do you need?

- - - Updated - - -

You can't discriminate based on ideology or race...its not some weird unknown law...

Have you found that evidence, yet... or are you running away?

[eschatological]

I'm not...they are telling me their function. You also can't discriminate service based on ideology...

You absolutely can.

Discrimination law in the U.S. is based on "protected classes." Those protected classes are race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability. Not political ideology. There is no bar for discriminating against political ideologies. I can ban people from my business if they're Republicans or Democrats. The fight to include sexual orientation among these classes is basically what the bakery case is about, with the conservative justices saying, essentially, that they don't think sexual orientation (despite it being inherent and immutable) should be a protected class.

And regardless of this: these laws only apply to the government, and businesses that are sufficiently public-facing (which Twitter would qualify for). If you're private membership, you can discriminate against anyone. It's why Augusta National was legally allowed to exclude black and women members, until actual social pressure pushed them to change that (but not a law).

Twitter, though public facing, has no obligation to platform people of every ideology. However, Twitter couldn't ban a person for being black, for example.

There is no absolute right to not be discriminated against in a private business, even if it's forward facing.

[Mihalik]

There is no absolute right to not be discriminated against in a private business, even if it's forward facing.

This ought to be self evidently obvious even to cuckservatives.

Do you really want the next Osama Bin al-Baghdadi or whatnot spamming your Twitter feed with Death to America memes and Jihadist ideological messaging, while going "Can't ban me infidel bro! Free speech!"

[postman1782]

I'm not...they are telling me their function. You also can't discriminate service based on ideology...

Actually you can. Being a KKK member or a Nazi isn't protected by the constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't discriminate based on ideology or race...its not some weird unknown law...

Race is protected, by the 14th amendment, ideology isn't.

[Krakan]

Yes you absolutely can. Political party or "ideology" is not a protected class, nor should it be.

Will be honest figured it was. It seems like the kind of thing you would expect to have.

[Machismo]

Will be honest figured it was. It seems like the kind of thing you would expect to have.

So, you made claims that were objectively false.

This was all to oppose free speech in the name of Nazis.

Are Nazis a protected class in your country? If so, let's see the evidence.

[Endus]

Will be honest figured it was. It seems like the kind of thing you would expect to have.

Why on earth would you?

There isn't a country on the planet that does that. It would mean having to allow terrorists to campaign and propagandize without legal repercussion (for instance). Hell, you could probably make a solid case for protecting child pornography under those precepts.

It's a bananas cuckoo idea.

[dwarven]

Tech giants are becoming so large that they are in a position to easily suppress human rights like freedom of speech if they wanted to. They should 100% be regulated in this way.

[Noxx79]

Will be honest figured it was. It seems like the kind of thing you would expect to have.

Why?

Nazis were a political party, should they be protected? Can I not fire someone for a giant swastika on their shirt that they wear unironically?

Ffs protected classes are about what you are, not what you think. (And America religion, but that’s really touchy)

[postman1782]

Tech giants are becoming so large that they are in a position to easily suppress human rights like freedom of speech if they wanted to. They should 100% be regulated in this way.

Wrong. You don't get freedom of speech on someone else's private property. Right now, they could kick you and ban you, and you can't say shit about it.

[Draco-Onis]

Tech giants are becoming so large that they are in a position to easily suppress human rights like freedom of speech if they wanted to. They should 100% be regulated in this way.

Freedom of speech protects you from the government not private companies and it's not freedom to have a platform. Under your thinking I could break into your house to give a speech and if you kick me out that would be infringing on my freedom of speech. You have no right to be given the freedom to speak or say what you want wherever you want without consequence.

[Edge-]

Will be honest figured it was. It seems like the kind of thing you would expect to have.

Why? Political party or ideological definition is a choice, not an identity or a part of who you are like being Black or LGBTQ+ or disabled.

Why would a country protect political identity like that, especially when we have political identities that include Nazi's where their ideology necessarily requires genocide?

[Machismo]

Tech giants are becoming so large that they are in a position to easily suppress human rights like freedom of speech if they wanted to. They should 100% be regulated in this way.

Nah, fuck that.

They are large as a feature, because people want to be where other people are at. This is an attack on their speech and their freedom of association.

[Endus]

Tech giants are becoming so large that they are in a position to easily suppress human rights like freedom of speech if they wanted to. They should 100% be regulated in this way.

Twitter can't suppress your human rights. Twitter can just ban you from Twitter. That's it.

You never had any right to access Twitter in the first place. It's not covered by freedom of speech.

[Ripster42]

The idea of "more speech" is pretty silly, TBH.

Freedom of speech is not about equal access to broadcast. That's just not what the term refers to, in any way whatsoever. You are not guaranteed "as much speech" as anyone else; freedom of speech is solely about your ability to (within limits) express yourself freely without government action against you for said speech.

To augment this bit, the only reason the Fairness Doctrine withheld scrutiny for as long as it did in the SC was because the gov't was regulating the frequencies that people could broadcast on. As there was a limited amount of spectrum to use, there was a legitimate concern about the sale of frequency spectrum by the gov't, as that actually did, in a very large way, mean the gov't was choosing who got to have speech rights (thus the required equal time provision). Since there isn't a limitation on frequency spectrums for the internet like there is for broadcast (and the expansion of cable TV before it), the equal time requirement lost relevancy.