Freedom of speech

>freedom of speech
>not a meme
Pick one

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit
firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly-on-private-property
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Twitter is not the government. They can censor whatever speech they want.

A private bakery is not the government. They can bake whatever they want.

Twitter is a traditional public forum providing quasi-governmental functions. They cannot censor speech if they want.

Once you monopolize a service and lead people into the belief that they will be accepted into it and then turn it around to attack them you are breaking your moral duty and ruining any measure of trust. Its wrong to be a fraudulent fuck

FPBP

You faggots using twitter and kikebook need to stop, mayn. Succ desu senpai famalam.

I agree, just because leftists don't doesnt mean its not okay for twitter to ban who they want

And refuse to bake whatever they want.

they can also expect all the backlash they want

Never. Never mess with weaponized autists.

Freedom of speech was never a good idea.

You should be arrested/deported(if not a citizen) for preaching any form of marxism-leninism, islamic radicalism, or anything else that is fundamentally harmful to society.

Why do we let criminals have an open mic? Shut it down.

>moral duty
Oh you mean something they have no obligation to gotcha

BURN!!! damn
praise kek

>liberals think nobody has an obligation to be moral


like tapestry

Wut is this kek wizardy!

>Using Twitter
>Not being a homosexual
Pick one

It's interesting how the market only has room for one user friendly video platform (Youtube) or one instant communication service (Twitter).

I'm aware of much smaller sites like DailyMotion but they never gain traction.

Even with MySpace, there was no room in the public mind for two, Facebook had to supplant it.

Wow, bigot much?

>liberal
No im just not under the delusion that they have anything that could tangibly compell them to do what you want. "Moral duty" is a lofty statement that differs depending on who uses it so it holds no power over a corporation.

Agreed. If it doesn't already, the law should be that monopolized entities lose the privilege of censoring free speech as a private entity. When people only have one option, and all control of speech in any particular form is in the hands of one entity, then they should be held to the same laws that a pulic entity would have to adhere.

trust me I understand. You have autism and think everyone should be a psychopath, as long as they agree with you.

if they disagree with you then it's the most reprehensible thing imaginable.

get fucked racists

we need to get in the systems. the lead us by fear and loathing. We must learn to embrace our hate.
we need to meme this and hope kek listens

>twitter
>private company eforcing their corporate governance rules

Hate speech is not free speech shitlord

>one instant communication service

>whatsapp
>twitter
>facebook messenger
>google messenger
>wechat
>snapchat

please take your ignorance elsewhere

>oh shit there are no laws supporting the garbage I'm spouting
>better call him an autist
You have no grounds to stand on

Dumbass twitter.

They're attacking the "alt-right" after they didn't get bid on or bought.

Donald Trump's administration could go vindictive and reject any sort of merger or acquisition they could have in the future for shit like this.

"I'm sorry Twitter, rejected."

>you are breaking your moral duty
They'd be breaking their moral duty if they allowed bigots to use Twitter to spread their racist and sexist propaganda.

The jew's plan to is evermore monopolize every single service in the world so they can obtain full control.

They make use of regulations and financial power to buy anyone who wants to fight against it.

Politics provides them with the regulation tools that they require.

Once they monopolize, this happens and there is nothing anybody can do.

This is the jew endgame for people like Soros and organizations like Google.

Sounds about right senpai

>laws, not morals

trust me, I totally understand. Keep pretending you're not scum.

>Twitter is a traditional public forum providing quasi-governmental functions.

lol wat?

As much as I think it's stupid I got to agree. Twitter and jewbook are private companies and as such they can censor whatever they want. Now I do think that they are digging their own graves with this shit, but that's their choice. Eventually they will crash just like their predecessors. Tech industry is fickle like that. Also social media is for retards and anyone that uses it get what they deserve.

who gets to define that behavior the SJW? They keep moving the goal posts on us. till we are where we are at now. fucks giving zero!!!

Morals are subjective, laws should be objective. You can play the game by the rules in place or flail around and cry like the people whining that their candidate lost.

why you make it news? lol
who can forget this
reddit com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/44e3lg/censorship_twitter_this_was_michael_margolis_the/

truth here! Anyone who appeases the crybabies will get the wraith of kek!

>A
>FUCKING
>LEAF

firstamendmentcenter.org/assembly-on-private-property

you're the reason America is no longer great.

I agree with you, once we gain power we must Destroy them

They should've done it a long time ago.

Daily reminder that child porn is speech

They suspended Richard Spencer who is at least reasonable and Paul Town, Ricky Vaughn who both did a lot of good propaganda for trump directed at normies, but shithead David Duke is not suspended. Really makes you think.

That image has to be a ruse

>>freedom of speech
>privately owned company

Pick one.

sheathing his katana, the user turned 360 degrees and walked away, past the whining severed head of the leftist

People who use Twitter are degenerates (except for Trump)

they suspended people who would successfully and articulately defend Trump.

Kind of stupid on their part, unless their Saudi investor forced them to ... being emotional.

Twitter couldn't get a bid from Google, Apple, or Disney.

Can't make money.

Need any more proof that Duke is a democrat false flag?

Sup Forums really needs to step up its shitposting.

we are searching out those links. kek will let us know! need d u b s!

You realize where you're from, right? You moosefucking syrup drinking snowbeaners don't have freedom of speech either. I hope that law passes and you get arrested for saying "he". Fuck you.

Dude, heads of state use this medium for primary communication to the public.

That alone is enough to render Twitter and other user-generated internet media platforms beyond the scope of a simple private corporation.

David Duke is inflammatory due to his notoriety. They keep him around to stir up the idiot-left.
And/or he's disinfo.

>I only agree with free speech if it doesn't contradict my leftist opinion

Twitter is free. They can do whatever they want.

PaulTown getting gassed I can understand since he was pushing the envelope all the time, but Richard Spencer getting banned was a hit job in coordination with the MSM reports on the "alt-right" as he never broke the ToS. Fuck, they banned my sockpuppet account for just following him, I didn't even posted ANYTHING with it. This shit ain't normal.

Oh, so the left is libertarian now? How fucking convenient.

cuck your self much?

nu-males these days, disgusting

the words of truth, this triggers the cuck

We're not saying what they're doing is illegal, but morally wrong. "Freedom of speech" is not just an accidental phrase from the constitution, it represents the idea of a free and open society.
Private censorship while legal opposes this idea.
People should value the ability to say their opinions without having that ability taken away when they have the wrong opinion.
People should therefore stop using Twitter.

Good , fuck this PC bullshit , get fuking rid of all alt right shit from our services. You cucks should fukin build your own Twitter you stupid fucks. No more PC, we hate alt right and we will be open about it

fuckig racist enjoy burning in hell

Private censorship does not because they have the right to set limits on their property much the way you have rights ovee your house to kick people out if they dont follow your rules. It doesnt conflict with anything and you faggots are desperately grasping at straws when the truth is morals dictate that by wishing to impose your values on their private system you are in the wrong.

this is a very confusing post

I think we've broken liberals

Meant for

Check ur flag bro. Your shitty country doesn't have free speech so you have no right to criticize other ones u stupid fucking germ.

I imagine you agree that businesses should be able to refuse service to gays. I hope you do because if you don't then you're a massive faggot

Twitter is not a platform for free speech

Just because they legally can doesn't mean they should

If you see us as liberals and not your countrymen then we won't consider you as our countrymen too. No more PC, unleash the hate

DEMOCRATS BTFO

GAYS BTFO

If it is privately owned then yes they should have that right though from a financial standpoint i dont personally think it would be wise. Same on the other side, gay establishments should have the right to refuse service to straights.

This may seem hypocritical, but I feel gas stations and grocery stores in places where they are the only option in an area should be excluded since they are vital parts of the local infrastructure.

Why do you keep using google then?

>Using google
>Not using DuckDuckGo

lol fags

Depends, are we talking about "freedom of speech" as a law, or as a virtue?

Legally, they can do whatever they want, so far as they don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc

We can expect a company to uphold certain virtues, even if they have no legal obligation to do so. You make enough people mad, and eventually a competitor will come along to fill the need. Like gab.ai

Best think we can do if we want online platforms that value free speech is to bitch about this.

Keep your ethics consistent. Either they can reject whoever they want or they can't. Don't make exceptions for convenience.

THANKS FOR CORRECTING THE RECORD

Both companies should be able to do what they want. Your argument doesn't refute , it supports it.

I think what people are missing here is that Twitter is an incorporated entity, not a privately owned establishment. The concept and legality of incorporation is held up by government, so the government should be able to dictate corporations as they are not people and thus do not have the same constitutional protections that individuals do.

This is not a matter of convenience, rather reconciliation with pursuit of life. If there is only one place to obtain food in an area and only one gas station and both deny their service then the person has no hope of leaving and no way to survive.

Sometimes people get stuck in unfortunate scenarios. The shop owner shouldn't be forced to serve the guy just because he's in trouble.

Should or shouldnt is exactly the point of debate here, and i believe its reasonable to say its not a black and white yes or no. Again I feel that since those are things that much like public water, are just about needed to survive, and thus could be considered part of the infrastructure, there must be some sort of rule put in place to ensure the pursuit of life.

This is the argument: We are not living in your idealistic dreamworld, since they obviously disregard your libertarian values anyway it wont help to limit yourself.

Twitter = Tool of Activism

>remove thouself from the discussion and stay in thou cave

Good. You guys are just beginning to realize the alt left is flexing its muscle over corporate America.

We are DONE. We will not let white men preach hate anymore while they hide behind "freeze peach." Fuck your First Amendment.

We will not debate.

We will not humor you.

We will not listen.

The time for tolerating that was before you memed a racist orange orangutan into office. Now, we just we fight. We shut you down anywhere and everywhere we can.

useing some one else system to pervert freedom.

Yeah no how about you make a staate sponsord messaging system like in china and force every one to use it.

>We will not debate.
>We will not listen.

Whew lads, I smell a bigot! :^)

The first amendment encodes freedom of speech into law, but it is not freedom of speech itself.

It's a value that exists independent of government, which twitter has previously claimed to uphold and clearly does not.

...

>We will not debate.
>We will not listen.
Put some effort into it lad, this is weak.

just because a moral obligation isn't enforceable, that doesn't mean it's no longer an obligation.

well, if you insist on denying me my first amendment rights, then I have no choice but to resort to non-speech methods to express myself. Believe me, you are going to like those expressions a lot less than you liked my speech

all speech is free speech or none of it is

There is no such thing as moral obligation since there are no defined boundaries of it. Once you recognise its existence it can be used as an argument for almost anything.

A lot of leftists claim that taking in shitskin refugees is a moral duty for all of Europe. You can not refute such argument without dismissing moral duty as a whole.

...