What's the argument against this?

What's the argument against this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>It's OK to shoot a leftard

They have no legal obligation but if they run a public forum then it shows that they don't believe in the principle of free speech. Just because it isn't a law doesn't mean there is no moral duty
Law=\=morality

Censorship and potential financial impact from being 'boycotted' is a lawsuit/something worse waiting to happen.

>what is a public forum

None. I can ban anyone from my private property for any reason I want.
Oh, and websites are also private property, and since the servers aren't yours they can ban you from accessing it for any reason they want.

Natural monopolies, especially ones that depend on infrastructure and technology built by the federal government, have to respect constitutional rights. Silicon Valley is intent on acting as a political block, they have committed themselves to pushing an agenda, being against neutrality.
Many of these same tech companies which take anti free speech stances were also pro SOPA/PIPA. They want to lobby the government for special rights for themselves while they deny you yours.

Monopolies don't get to piggyback on government infrastructure that we paid for and then use it to stifle us.

there is no argument, it's set up that way

>hey you said you don't like communism so we're going to bar you from visiting our supermarkets which are the only places that sell diapers and milk within 40 miles
>btw we're cutting off your internet from the only internet provider available and we're barring your car from our toll network which services all of the roads out of the city
>WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, WE DON'T HAVE TO HOST YOU IF YOU SAID A BAD THING


these people will gladly continue doing this until someone starts renting trucks

If he won't stand for free speech, why should the government, since the government is just the will of the people?

Free speech is not just an amendment, it's a culture. The amendment cannot help you if you've already abandoned the culture.

That the concept of free speech was not invented by the US constitution
And that the guy who does XKCD is a pseudointellectual faggot who is completely inferior to the guy who runs SMBC

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

>go on youtube
>dont watch shit you dont like

gib me ma nobel pceze prize

>95% of people in crowd want to listen
>5% dont
>That 5% blow airhorns and shout down the speaker
>the 95% have no recourse outside of physical violence to stop the protestors

lmao the ppl listening think ur an asshole and are showing you the door xD

If its in a public space its protected.

It's not worthwhile to argue against strawmen. Saged hard.

People boycotting your content or not buying your shit because they don’t like your viewpoints is entirely within their rights and doesn’t violate anything about freedom of speech. However, if you use government resources and are essentially monopolies, banning people for legal speech is essentially using your monopoly status to violate their rights. If they make their own private internet and allocate their own resources and completely avoid any infrastructure laid by a government, then they should be allowed to ban whoever but they really shouldn’t be treated as private companies unless they do that.

>government can't arrest you for what you say
The government can't do *anything* to you.
>host you while you share it
Public institutions and places such as universities or parks must host such demonstrations. They are government entities and are therefore bound by the constitution. Publicly funded private institutions should be required to host such demonstrations or lose their public funds.
>consequences
Harassment is illegal. It doesn't matter that your motivation for harassing someone is their spoken opinions.
>yelled at
Disorderly conduct is illegal. The right of free speech doesn't protect you from prosecution for screaming in someone's face regardless of the content of your "message".
>boycotted, canceled, banned
Any such activity by a government agent, institution, or by someone funded by the government violates the constitution.

>you can boycott people
>You can criticize people
Agreed

But, you are not aloud to say "No, we aren't going to even let you say a word at all" That's called censorship, and in these cases, it's not people screaming the n-word or anything it's literally just people saying "hey, that may not be a good idea, hey, not everyone thinks this way". Conservatives on twitter getting shadowed banned is not free speech. And if you don't want to see their message, you CAN JUST FUCKING BLOCK THEM. OR BETTER YET, DON'T. WATCH. THE. SHOW.

I wonder how he feels about net neutrality.

I hate fucking doing it. But THIS is the argument against a non-strawman. Funny. I saw three jews on PBS today. Talking about morality and not censoring others. While proclaiming they are by divine writ fit to ajudicate in place of the state.

I think it was two google jews. And some faggot interviewer. Made my blood boil. Google is not deputised to decide who is breaking which laws.

>google's headquarters is in...

Given his argument, he would have to be against it.

Well as far as hosting opinions you disagree with, I can't remember the exacts and can't be assed to look it up. There was a case in the US where this guy was running a newspaper in a town owned by some company, got shut down because it was private property and they could do what they wanted, but it was ruled that because the company had a monopoly on speech they had to protect this guy's free speech.

As for the rest, critisism is obviously allowed, as are boycotts etc. showing up in force to deliberately shut down an opposing opinion isn't.

Why are all leftists comics these long winded monologues that are not funny or entertaining in the slightest.

If a private individual or company doesn't want you to use their platform to express yourself, they're perfectly within their rights to censor you.

However, the government should be barred from subsidizing or doing any kind of business with an individual or organization which does not hold itself to the same Constitutional standard as it does.

Any politician who takes money from such an entity would also have to be considered as fully participating in their Constitutional violations as well, and punished accordingly.

But aside from that, sure, censor away.

It's an argument to nationalize all forms of social media

Free exchange of ideas is an essential foundation of democracy and progress. Legal apparels protecting free speech to various extents recognize the importance of protecting this concept against anti-intellectual tyranny. An argument against free speech on the basis of legal technicalities is essentially an argument for obscurantism.
There is no clever gotcha concluding the above point. A dumber world is no laughing matter, especially when their advocates would be capable of intelligent thought should they choose to discard politically motivated blinders.

simple really, if you can lose your job for expressing your unpopular opinion, it goes without saying your free speech rights aren't really being honored.

Because once you threaten someones livelihood and ability to put bread on the table, you essentially control that person, even if you don't throw them in jail. It's still censorship.

Furthermore once you've established that, you can keep on making the rules even more stringent until free speech and honest ingenuous intellectual discussion become a relic of the past and you have a police state where the people are policing themselves, kind of like a self induced 1984.

Which is kind of what we have on social media nowadays.

>Don't like it, conservatives? Just go to another platform, it's that easy!
Ah yes, because youtube doesn't have a fucking monopoly on video hosting, and them enforcing their own ideologies on the content they host isn't incredibly telling at all.

>It's only okay because the ones doing the censoring share my political beliefs.
Gosh, just imagine how nuclear the left would be going if all the channels that espoused their political views were suddenly silenced en masse.

The First amendment is archaic and open to interpretation. The Second is perfect and carved in stone.

>First amendment . . . open to interpretation
Nothing in the constitution is open to interpretation.
Either the document gives a specific power to the
government or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then that power
is reserved to each state to decide for itself. If
a state's constitution doesn't reserve that power
for itself, the power rests with the individual.

>10th Amendment
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thats uh, not at all the way we enforce the establishment or free exercise clauses of the same amendment. It is certainly not how we enforce the 2nd amendment, nor literally any other. I want 100% free speech. But saying the government should not associate with any group or company that does not follow the same constiutional standards is pretty weird. Do they need a rule making body separate from their executive and a judicial?

Like, if you want to say the 1st amendment should apply to BIG companies that exist on the internet and have the user base as their product, I'd actually get that. It's because the internet is redefining the way of the world. But saying the government should force it's constitutional rule set on a company doesn't really make sense generally.

I wonder how many leftists who use this "They are private companies they do what they want!" argument are also in favor of Net Neutrality laws.

Take off that flag.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court has proved that every single amendment in the bill of rights can be open to interpretation, almost always to the detriment of the American people.
Also Wickard v Filburn showed that the Articles could be just as open to interpretation, so long as it fucks over Americans for the rich.

>get banned from AN internet community
>not taking into account the massive consolidation of social media into a monopoly of 3 cooperating companies
Yawn

>saying the government should not associate with any group or company that does not follow the same constiutional standards is pretty weird.
The government shouldn't be doing this anyway. That's the conflict. If these companies weren't already so heavily subsidized they probably wouldn't have gotten so huge.

this

>But saying the government should not associate with any group or company that does not follow the same constiutional standards is pretty weird.
If the government is aiding a private company in denying someone their constitutional rights, the government is denying someone their constitutional rights. It doesn't matter the the government is not 100% at fault. Even if the government is only 1% at fault, the government is violating someone's constitutional rights.

Basically the comic confuses the legal right to free speech with the principle of free speech. The legal right says that congress can't pass a law restricting your speech (some exceptions). The principle is that you should listen to different points of view and settle disagreements with words rather than weapons.

So, according to the legal principle, when a speaker who you disagree with shows up on campus, and a big crowd of people want to go and listen, you can scream, disrupt, taunt, etc. "Hey man, it's my free speech" and you are acting within the confines of the law, but you aren't actually following the principle of free speech. You're preventing discussion rather than promoting it.

BAKE THE CAKE, YOU BIGOT

>If the government is aiding a private company in denying someone their constitutional rights, the government is denying someone their constitutional rights. It doesn't matter the the government is not 100% at fault. Even if the government is only 1% at fault, the government is violating someone's constitutional rights.


I do follow what you are saying, but think about it with the second amendment. I am 100% pro gun rights. But if you told me I wouldn't qualify for my business tax breaks because I don't allow customers to bring their Concealed Carrys on my property I would freak the fuck out about government infringing on my rights.

Article Five of the US constitution describes, in detail, the ONLY method by which the constitution may be amended.
The Judicial branch (Supreme Court) is not included in that process. The fact that the Supreme Court committed treason by assuming and exercising powers not granted to it by the constitution doesn't make what they do consitutional.
The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to amend the constitution any more than Sup Forums does.

So if people wanted to ban Black people from facebook nobody would care?
If right wing people owned twitter they would be fine with leftist content being terminated?

These people turn into orthodox Libertarians whenever it suits their interests

>The principle is that you should listen to different points of view and settle disagreements with words rather than weapons.

That's a fucking shit principle why the fuck would anyone support that?

Correct.

The government, which is built on liberal ideals, can be punished if it doesn't allow freedom of speech. Liberals are supposed to like this but they hypocritically support banning people with unpopular opinions using a private platform like twitter because they're too pathetic to win an argument against a racist.

It also shows they don't have faith in the people to decide what's right since they want to ban unpopular opinions instead of expecting the people to reject it out of disgust.

Basically that cartoon is obnoxiously hypocritical from a liberal viewpoint.

When someone posts this I tell them to bake the cake

>business tax breaks
>conceal carry

What the fuck are you talking about?

but most of the people who unnecessarily bring up their political beliefs when it isnt even relevant are lefties though
turn on any news station and it will be heavily leftist biased, same with any faggy celebrity award show where they get to give a speech, and commercials for product (where companies get to virtue signal), even the vast majority of the internet is a leftist echo chamber to varying degrees depending on which site you're on


what the person who made this comic thinks their saying is "dont get mad when people say mean things to you lol XD" but what they're really saying is "STOP SAYING THINGS I THINK ARE MEAN >:^("

this and
this

I don't know which tax breaks you're referring to, but I agree that the government shouldn't be offering incentives or disincentives to people or businesses for their stance on any issue.

>Corporations now run the country so were morally justified in oppressing you

There are 2 'Free Speech'-es.

One is a Free Speech Law. The second is a Free Speech Ideal/morality/value/intent from which the Free Speech Law was derived from.

The Free Speech Law is limited in scope to whims of enforcement of a national government.

The Free Speech Ideal is a divine right by birth, and national government has merely elected to self-adhere to it in limited scope. The private sector can choose to subvert the divine right of the Free Speech Ideal because national government has not extended its scope of power - but that does not mean a subversion of the Free Speech Ideal by a private entity is not immoral, is not unethical, is not inhumane, and is not devilish.

I can hit the gas and turn a jaywalker into a pile of hamburger, that doesn't make it the right thing to do for the good of the human race.

If I wasn't clear; the Free Speech Ideal wholly supersedes the Free Speech Law in every measurable way EXCEPT for totalitarian enforcement by a government backed by violence.

Also gay wedding cakes.

>the 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticisms or consequences

Then what's wrong with running over protestors? Or suspending students who plan to skip school just to participate in a muh gun control March?

Google/Youtube should be made public utilities.

this.
"Freedom of speech" isn't just a government thing. Who honestly thinks that the 1st Amendment is the end all be all of free speech? Free speech can't exist outside of the Constitution?

>liable
>defamation
>fighting words

It actually should be as he describes it but that fucker is a retard in every single he thing he tries to preach.
His mathematics are fucking meme-youtuber tier too and he makes me cringe when he tries to pretend to be an intellectual mathematician. Stupid piece of shit deserves to be shot for his opinion and he can defend not being shielded from the consequences of freedom of speech while he drowns in his own blood the fucking communist sycophant.

If they support holocaust denial laws or hate speech laws, then it's bullshit. (spoilers: they actually do)

Basically they're not pro free speech, they're for controlled speech(a nicer way of saying anti free speech)

Can't have race realism or the JQ discussion, that would destroy their diversity narrative.

xkcd is the fedora of comics

...

Liberals , socialists and commies suddenly love private property rights when right wing views get censored.

Just look at their responses when even an Israeli ass kisses like Alex Jones is on the verge of getting shoa'd

It is us telling them to gtfo