Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Felya]

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.

You need government to regulate speech... but, you think it’s Twitter that’s suppressing your rights... weird...

[Krakan]

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?

Because to my knowledge they do so for religious groups so it seems a natural extension. It even matches your reasoning for political.

[Edge-]

Because to my knowledge they do so for religious groups so it seems a natural extension. It even matches your reasoning for political.

While it may be getting harder to tell, you'd be hard pressed to find much support for comparing belief in a religion with membership in a political party. Especially when it comes to how religion is passed down in some cultures/religions where it is at birth, something you don't really see with political parties when it comes time for a newborn.

Also, again, religion is a protected class. Political party, or ideology, is not. You can ban all the commies you want from your shop and ain't nobody gonna stop ya.

[dwarven]

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.

And that will soon change.

[postman1782]

And that will soon change.

I can pretty much guarantee it won't, because we have this thing called the first amendment and private property laws. Unless you are planning on seizing Twitter or Facebook's private property, which is fucking communism, it won't fucking happen.

[smityx]

The problem with these people is these laws and regulations they want "are for thee not for me". Cause you know "some animals are more equal than others".

[Krakan]

While it may be getting harder to tell, you'd be hard pressed to find much support for comparing belief in a religion with membership in a political party. Especially when it comes to how religion is passed down in some cultures/religions where it is at birth, something you don't really see with political parties when it comes time for a newborn.

Also, again, religion is a protected class. Political party, or ideology, is not. You can ban all the commies you want from your shop and ain't nobody gonna stop ya.

That seems a weak argument but I don't see much point in contesting it if anything it just highlights how moronic the concept of protected classes are. Have one set of laws for all people.

[postman1782]

That seems a weak argument but I don't see much point in contesting it if anything it just highlights how moronic the concept of protected classes are. Have one set of laws for all people.

Well, we would, if there weren't people that have made laws against all kinds of minority classes. Including women, blacks, Asians, gays, and other religions. And that is your people.

[Machismo]

That seems a weak argument but I don't see much point in contesting it if anything it just highlights how moronic the concept of protected classes are. Have one set of laws for all people.

People who push lies about laws don't get to whine about weak arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

And that will soon change.

Why do you hate freedom of speech so damn much?

- - - Updated - - -

Because to my knowledge they do so for religious groups so it seems a natural extension. It even matches your reasoning for political.

No, no it does not.

What country do you live in, show me the law in your country that does it.

Or, admit to lying... again. Your call.

[Endus]

I can pretty much guarantee it won't, because we have this thing called the first amendment and private property laws. Unless you are planning on seizing Twitter or Facebook's private property, which is fucking communism, it won't fucking happen.

Beyond this, even if the USA launched these kinds of laws, literally all that would happen is that Twitter would disallow American users and put up IP restrictions to keep American IPs from accessing it.

They can't function with those laws at all, but they can function by ignoring the USA and continuing their business in the rest of the world.

You might get AmeriTwitter, but now we're just talking about the USA making its own Internet, like China, with a Great Firewall around it to protect them from the scary free world outside.

That's the funny thing about American laws. They stop mattering at the border.

- - - Updated - - -

That seems a weak argument but I don't see much point in contesting it if anything it just highlights how moronic the concept of protected classes are. Have one set of laws for all people.

Protected class legislations literally protect all people, by design. Every single protected class protects literally every single person under the law.

Anyone who understands the law knows this. It's really basic stuff.

[Themius]

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.

I’d argue that perhaps not Twitter but Facebook can indirectly fuck over human rights when used as a platform by bad actors yet doesn’t act. As I posted about years ago on Burma.

[Big Thanks]

YO i made a thread about this a while ago? anyone remember?

Internet is more toxic than ever before and someone needs to do something about it

I was ahead of my time

[Noxx79]

And that will soon change.

Cool. When can can come to your yard and cover it with Biden signs. The outside is a public space.

[Slant]

I'm all for more oversight over social media companies, but not for extending First Amendment protections from the government to private companies on the internet like this.

But that is specifically what the First Amendment exists for. To protect private companies (or more to the point, their staff, CEO and owners) from the Government. That is exactly the point of the First Amendment.

But that doesn't mean that these companies don't need to be regulated. Regulation doesn't necessarily equal censorship. The First Amendment doesn't protect you from having rules imposed onto you. It's not allowed in most places to run around naked. There, First Amendment of nudists limited. I don't see a conflict here.

[Felya]

And that will soon change.

When is the next Trump insurrection?

[Tuor]

I don't like commies or fascists... Who the hell is Clarence Thomas anyway? Never heard of him before.

[Ripster42]

Who the hell is Clarence Thomas anyway?

One of 9 people currently entrusted to determine what free speech is by the US govt. He's a SCOTUS judge.

[Felya]

I'd rather come inside and sing the entire Queen catalogue from 12A to 6A. Stop restricting my free speech!

Oh... that is hard choice... I don’t know... without thinking too long... the first 30 seconds of this on a loop:



Oh man... music to freak out conservatives... that got me thinking...

[Tuor]

One of 9 people currently entrusted to determine what free speech is by the US govt. He's a SCOTUS judge.

A Governement that enlists a set of people to discuss free speach? are we speaking of Nazi Germany? Perhaps Fascist Italy? Or perhaps Soviet Union?

Damn... Its the US... Really sad, there goes freedom.

[Felya]

I don't like commies or fascists... Who the hell is Clarence Thomas anyway? Never heard of him before.

Do people not have Google? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill