Should AT&T and Verizon do more to combat hate speech?

[Galactis]

Freedom of speech is to protection against the government taking legal action against you for speech. There's nothing in the constitution that *obligates* a business to give you a platform to speak from. Posting on a social media website owned by anyone that isn't you isn't a "right".

I completely 100% disagree then. I err on the side of unlimited rights as a human being. A business, does not have the authority to decide what a person can and can not say regardless if that business owns the goods or services.

If I created a website forum or video hosting platform. Everyone would be allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech! However, an opposing person to that content might disagree and create a video, post, or whatnot sating the opposite. Still Freedom of Speech. I would never regulate what content people can say.

[Machismo]

I completely 100% disagree then. I err on the side of unlimited rights as a human being. A business, does not have the authority to decide what a person can and can not say regardless if that business owns the goods or services.

If I created a website forum or video hosting platform. Everyone would be allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech! However, an opposing person to that content might disagree and create a video, post, or whatnot sating the opposite. Still Freedom of Speech. I would never regulate what content people can say.

Then start that website.

The issue is that is not all you want, you want to force ALL websites to behave like you claim to want, stifling their freedom of speech and freedom of association in the process.

[Galactis]

The start that website.

The issue is that is not all you want, you want to force ALL websites to behave like you claim to want, stifling their freedom f speech and freedom of association in the process.

No, What should have happened is Youtube, Facebook, Google, Apple, To leave it alone. People make speech the content and leave it at that. Allowing it be regulated abridges individuals freedoms.

That simple.

[Endus]

An individual outside the scope of business practice has individual freedom of speech to say whatever they want.

An individual has that right, period. No "outside the scope of business practice"; you're inserting that and it has no basis. And it only serves to restrict their freedoms in business.

Meanwhile, a business who takes away others freedom of speech by removing individual content made by an individual citizen.

This is definitively, categorically false. Removing that content does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way whatsoever, it merely denies the citizen the use of those business' services, which they never had any right to in the first place.

I get that you want this to be true, but it very clearly is not.

That is a violation of freedom of speech. The businesses owners' freedom of speech has not been violated.

You cannot take that step, to legally control and restrict the messaging a business owner can broadcast using their own property, without directly attacking the business owner's freedom of speech.

So again; what you're saying is categorically incorrect.

You don't get to say "private citizens have free speech, unless they're business owners, in which case the State will strictly enforce what their speech may be", and pretend you're taking an egalitarian stance on free speech.


Edit: And before you come back with "nuh uh, I believe otherwise", if these were violations of free speech, then lawsuits against those companies for these bans would be constant, and would be regularly won, in basically every Western nation. That's not happening, because the law contradicts your claims, directly and explicitly.

[Pper]

That would be fascism.
Why is this thread not locked immediately?
Can mods read? I highly doubt it.

[Galactis]

An individual has that right, period. No "outside the scope of business practice"; you're inserting that and it has no basis. And it only serves to restrict their freedoms in business.



This is definitively, categorically false. Removing that content does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way whatsoever, it merely denies the citizen the use of those business' services, which they never had any right to in the first place.

I get that you want this to be true, but it very clearly is not.



You cannot take that step, to legally control and restrict the messaging a business owner can broadcast using their own property, without directly attacking the business owner's freedom of speech.

So again; what you're saying is categorically incorrect.

You don't get to say "private citizens have free speech, unless they're business owners, in which case the State will strictly enforce what their speech may be", and pretend you're taking an egalitarian stance on free speech.

Then by what you are saying, a person has no freedom of speech at all in any scope, in business, in private, in anywhere and that it must be controlled by the elite few that control media, government, financial systems?

I wholeheartedly can say, that if a business decides that I cannot let my freedom of speech out then, those businesses need shut down.

- - - Updated - - -

If a business can Abridge my unlimited freedom to say whatever a person wants, then that is country, state, is not "free" and should be shut down.

[Endus]

Then by what you are saying, a person has no freedom of speech at all in any scope, in business, in private, in anywhere and that it must be controlled by the elite few that control media, government, financial systems?

Nope. That doesn't follow from anything I've said. You're making shit up.

You've got the right to say what you want. Businesses are free to decide if they want to broadcast your speech. You never had any right or entitlement to that business' services, unless you owned the business yourself, and then you'd be banning your own speech, so that's not anyone else restricting your freedoms.

If you can go out to a public park and speak your mind, you've got freedom of speech. That freedom does not entitle you to the use of other people's property against their will, which is what you're arguing.

- - - Updated - - -

If a business can Abridge my unlimited freedom to say whatever a person wants, then that is country, state, is not "free" and should be shut down.

This is not happening. Period. Your rights are not being abridged, in any way.

You're insisting, without basis, that your right to free speech includes an entitlement to the use of other people's property against their will. And you can't back that claim up.

Edit: Also, "unlimited freedom" is a senseless qualifier. All rights and freedoms have limits, because other people exist and also have rights and freedoms.

[alturic]

Freedom of speech is to protection against the government taking legal action against you for speech. There's nothing in the constitution that *obligates* a business to give you a platform to speak from. Posting on a social media website owned by anyone that isn't you isn't a "right".

You expect people to know this when people think it's illegal to record them in public.

[Machismo]

No, What should have happened is Youtube, Facebook, Google, Apple, To leave it alone. People make speech the content and leave it at that. Allowing it be regulated abridges individuals freedoms.

That simple.

Except you want to regulate it...

You also dodged my comment about forcing businesses to host everything. I want to confrim that you support this:

"That's not what I said. Your argument is that a person could walk into a business, yell racist shit at everyone, and piss on the floor... and the business would not be legally able to kick them out. Your argument is that this site should be required by law to host explicit porn. Your argument is that a Christian website should be obligated by law to advertise gay porn, and pro-ISIS propaganda."

Do you think all websites should be obligated to do those things, or do you think they should be able to decide not to do that stuff?

- - - Updated - - -

New rule:

If you're not conserving anything culturally/socially, you should not be allowed to call yourself a Conservative.

Well, I'm conservative capitalism, free speech, and freedom of association, and trying to stop radicals like you.

[Galactis]

Then shut them down, If a person can't have the right to say whatever they want. Shut it down and take the service away if a person cannot say whatever they want because, it conflicts with others ideas. That's all. I'd rather no one have the service than have the freedom taken away.

[Endus]

Then shut them down, If a person can't have the right to say whatever they want. Shut it down and take the service away if a person cannot say whatever they want because, it conflicts with others ideas. That's all. I'd rather no one have the service than have the freedom taken away.

What "freedom" do you think entitles you to someone else's private property?

Because it ain't freedom of speech.

[Galactis]

What "freedom" do you think entitles you to someone else's private property?

Because it ain't freedom of speech.

If it conflicts with freedom of speech, then they are in my eyes unable to tell a person they cannot have that content taken away. Sorry but, I as a person have free reign over whatever I want to say at whenever, whatever, wherever venue, time, place. Regardless. That's how I see it. Disagree all you want, that's just another problem with our elite ruling society in america. Flat out just can't have the service then.

[Jomibo]

Allowing it be regulated abridges individuals freedoms.

That simple.

Those individual freedoms do not, nor have they ever included the right to access platforms owned by others.

You can stand in the street and shout whatever you want (and accept the social consequences) but you can NOT use my vehicle (nor my company's vehicle) to drive around town shouting whatever you want.

The disconnect here seems to be that you have full rights to do as you please on platforms owned by others. You wanting companies to be forced to bend to your will is irrelevant, because that isn't (nor should it be) how things work.

You expect people to know this when people think it's illegal to record them in public.

Sad, but true.

[Galactis]

Those individual freedoms do not, nor have they ever included the right to access platforms owned by others.

You can stand in the street and shout whatever you want (and accept the social consequences) but you can NOT use my vehicle (nor my company's vehicle) to drive around town shouting whatever you want.

The disconnect here seems to be that you have full rights to do as you please on platforms owned by others. You wanting companies to be forced to bend to your will is irrelevant, because that isn't (nor should it be) how things work.


Sad, but true.

Then , no one should have that service.

[Machismo]

Then shut them down, If a person can't have the right to say whatever they want. Shut it down and take the service away if a person cannot say whatever they want because, it conflicts with others ideas. That's all. I'd rather no one have the service than have the freedom taken away.

Is that in response to what I said?

[Endus]

If it conflicts with freedom of speech, then they are in my eyes unable to tell a person they cannot have that content taken away.

Since freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to their private property in the first place, then it cannot conflict with freedom of speech to have that access removed.

Sorry but, I as a person have free reign over whatever I want to say at whenever, whatever, wherever venue, time, place. Regardless. That's how I see it. Disagree all you want, that's just another problem with our elite ruling society in america. Flat out just can't have the service then.

This isn't a case that you get to have a difference of opinion about. These rights and freedoms are matters of law, and have strict definitions. Not just in the USA, but internationally, your position is definitively, categorically false. No nation agrees with you on this. That makes you wrong, by definition. What you're describing is not freedom of speech, and has nothing to do with people's actual rights and freedoms.

That might annoy you, but your annoyance doesn't overrule reality.

[Machismo]

If it conflicts with freedom of speech, then they are in my eyes unable to tell a person they cannot have that content taken away. Sorry but, I as a person have free reign over whatever I want to say at whenever, whatever, wherever venue, time, place. Regardless. That's how I see it. Disagree all you want, that's just another problem with our elite ruling society in america. Flat out just can't have the service then.

That's very authoritarian and anti-freedom of you. It's weird to think you believe anyone can come onto your private property whenever they like, and say whatever they want, without you being able to stop them.

[Galactis]

If a group of people want to spew hate speech, so be it. I have no problem with it, doesn't bother me. If seen it, heard, and been around it before. I don't care. That's their right to speak freely and do so at their will. Sorry but, I as a human do not like being controlled. Now if said group is creating violence, now that is slightly different. Not transitioning here at all. Just stating that all speech is unlimited.

[Endus]

If a group of people want to spew hate speech, so be it. I have no problem with it, doesn't bother me. If seen it, heard, and been around it before. I don't care. That's their right to speak freely and do so at their will. Sorry but, I as a human do not like being controlled. Now if said group is creating violence, now that is slightly different. Not transitioning here at all. Just stating that all speech is unlimited.

Again, freedoms cannot be unlimited, because other people exist and also have rights and freedoms.

Basic concepts, dude.

[Galactis]

Other people also have unlimited freedom to say what they want.