Web Censorship and Political Bias

#727
#727
Rifleman said:
How would the "Death to the Infidels" restaurant owner's speech be infringed if he/she had to Christians?
Click to expand...

If the .gov is forcing anyone to serve another person it is infringing on their freedom of association.
 
#728
#728
hUTch2002 said:
I do agree that if Twitter and other platforms are editing content or providing some sort of opinion then they lose their immunity. Why do they feel the need to step in and fact check Trump? Let the other Twitter users do it. That’s the whole point of the platform. It’s individuals sharing opinions and, as such, they’ve been afforded protection from any liability since they’re supposed to be nothing more than a means of sharing. When they start removing and/or editing content that isn’t in violation of their policies that’s where the problem comes in. Do they have a right to remove what they want? Sure. Do they have a right to immunity once they choose to engage? No. That’s what this is about. This isn’t about Trump trying to dictate actions of a private business.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly what this apparent executive order is about. Now, if the issue is whether or not Twitter should now be classified as a "publisher" rather than a "platform", then that is a valid debate. This executive order still represents government overreach, and an abuse of power. There would have been some howling from the right if Obama had ever done anything like this. It is a self-serving executive order, which is what the right has decried in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#729
#729
BowlBrother85 said:
There would have been some howling from the right if Obama had ever done anything like this. It is a self-serving executive order, which is what the right has decried in the past.
Click to expand...

I guess whataboutisms are out of bounds, but hypothetical whataboutisms fly. I appreciate your thoughts on this, but to be consistent you should object to forced association with mandates like Obamacare.
 
#730
#730
hog88 said:
If the .gov is forcing anyone to serve another person it is infringing on their freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Where is "freedom of association" in the Constitution, exactly?

And since you believe "Death to the Infidels" sandwich shop should have a Constitutional right not to serve Donald J. Trump because he has stated his belief in Jesus Christ, does it also hold that he has no right to tell Twitter to provide him unfettered service as well?
 
#732
#732
midnight orange said:
It would be forced association which is not granted to the federal govt under the constitution. People wouldn’t go anyway because you probably wouldn’t be able to buy a pork sandwich.
Click to expand...

No one in the government made them go to city hall and apply for a license to open a public business, so there was no forcing.

You can't go to a public pool and sue someone because you saw a kid cross himself before jumping off the diving board.
 
#733
#733
Rifleman said:
Where is "freedom of association" in the Constitution, exactly?

And since you believe "Death to the Infidels" sandwich shop should have a Constitutional right not to serve Donald J. Trump because he has stated his belief in Jesus Christ, does it also hold that he has no right to tell Twitter to provide him unfettered service as well?
Click to expand...

Yes. I would support Twitters right to close his or anyone else's account if they do not like what they are saying on their platform.
 
#734
#734
Rifleman said:
No one in the government made them go to city hall and apply for a license to open a public business, so there was no forcing.

You can't go to a public pool and sue someone because you saw a kid cross himself before jumping off the diving board.
Click to expand...

You are bouncing around like a super ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#735
#735
utvolpj said:
Liberty
Click to expand...

I think the scariest word in the Constitution for most people on the right, is the first one.

People who are scared of people unlike themselves, have no guaranteed right to exclude those people from a public business. If I come down to your mosque eating barbecue, that's on me. If you tell me I'm too Christian for your lamb kebob shop, that's on you.
 
#737
#737
Rifleman said:
I think the scariest word in the Constitution for most people on the right, is the first one.

People who are scared of people unlike themselves, have no guaranteed right to exclude those people from a public business. If I come down to your mosque eating barbecue, that's on me. If you tell me I'm too Christian for your lamb kebob shop, that's on you.
Click to expand...

Who's right's are more important? The person demanding to be served or the person refusing service?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#738
#738
Had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who is deeply conservative and he is causing me to rethink at least part of this. He contends that the social media companies are run by liberals that seek to find ways to inhibit comments by conservatives, not just Trump. He says Twitter avoids coming to loggerheads with Trump because he is POTUS and he's too effective to be tangled with.

Now, that part I view as hyperbole and am a bit skeptical of the claim.

On the other hand he points to a case of two doctors who early on in the Covid situation were having a discussion on Twitter that the shut down approach was bad policy. He contends that Twitter took their discussion down on grounds that they were not allowing anything that contravened CDC policy during an emergency.

I have not had a chance to look at the issue but will try to do so this weekend. To me, the thing to have done with that latter situation is similar to what they did with Trump's voter fraud claims: allow the tweets to remain, but put some kind of disclaimer there by Twitter - call it an editorial board if you'd like -- that points out errors of fact or unjustified leaps of logic.

I remain concerned that Trump's approach today is too much, too far, and is directing content by government, which we obviously cannot have, but perhaps there is a reasonable middle ground here that would allow both speech and criticism of speech that lacks merit, i.e. the Scarborough nonsense. Needs more thought and research.
 
#741
#741
hog88 said:
Who's right's are more important? The person demanding to be served or the person refusing service?
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law is the goal. I think the Supreme Court has almost always decided these issues properly as they did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where the owner was in the right.

I just don't believe that owning a public business makes your rights more important than those of the people you serve.
 
#742
#742
Rifleman said:
Equal protection under the law is the goal. I think the Supreme Court has almost always decided these issues properly as they did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where the owner was in the right.

I just don't believe that owning a public business makes your rights more important than those of the people you serve.
Click to expand...

I never said anyone's rights are more important than anothers. They are equal, forcing a private business to associate with people they do not want to is the opposite of equal protection.
 
#744
#744
Rifleman said:
And you are as inelastic as ever.
Click to expand...

Have a Trump ball
brandsonsale-store_2271_541754550
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#748
#748
rjd970 said:
Looks like over 166k people liked the tweet. This one is about as clear cut as it can be and people still prefer partisanship over what is constitutional. We are screwed as a nation.
Click to expand...
Any time you see a govt worker use the word "fairness" you should be very afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top