Censorship
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
What can I say besides sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice, in this case a relatively small one.
Thanks for proving me right I guess?
The Ann Coulter comment is the closest thing you can find. I always point out the difference between liberals (free speech warriors) and leftists (commie scum).
Freedom of religion is a civil right. Picking on one of a dozen local bakers is stalking.
Why do you continue to engage? The one sidedness of the conversations can't be enjoyable.
Such as shame that spreading deliberate lies isn't easier.
Amazing how irrelevant truth and accuracy is in the age of MAGA.
Your point is that you are very specific about liberals?
Does continuing to pay facebook money count as free speech warrioring?
Same rationale behind anti-miscegenation statutes, civil rights act, integration, slavery...
The question here is whether social media needs to be a protected class. Clearly you think so, but you have yet to provide a case for your opinion.
Have you not been paying attention? Are you so busy projecting both sides of the debate here that you don't know what people have been stating in the thread?
You are going to have to state your case instead of dancing around it. I already answered the section 230 red herring.
You think people have the right to deny them public accommodation on the basis of religion.
It's not my case, it's the US government's case via legislation and court rulings. Links have already been posted.
But let's start with you. Why is the case of immunity provided by Section 230 and court cases a "red herring" in your eyes?
I was answering your baseless allegation that you have wholly failed to back up. I do throw around "the left" and "leftists" because they suck and need to be culturally and politically ground into the dust. I do not throw around "liberals" as a pejorative - as you lied about me doing right here.
And then you proceeded to pull a handful of times I used the world "liberal" and in every case but one, I made a clear distinction between liberals (whom I respect) and leftists (whom I loathe). You proved my point nicely. Thanks?
They are not the same thing, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal while spouting anti-free speech propaganda from corporate information monopolies.
Because it is legal framework the internet is built on. You want to see free speech curtailed, repeal 230.
who said anything about prejorative? You are parsing language that isn't even there.I was answering your baseless allegation that you have wholly failed to back up. I do throw around "the left" and "leftists" because they suck and need to be culturally and politically ground into the dust. I do not throw around "liberals" as a pejorative - as you lied about me doing right here.
And then you proceeded to pull a handful of times I used the world "liberal" and in every case but one, I made a clear distinction between liberals (whom I respect) and leftists (whom I loathe). You proved my point nicely. Thanks?
They are not the same thing, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal while spouting anti-free speech propaganda from corporate information monopolies.
I see. So you are claiming that wasn't the context of your quote? How then do I "throw the word around?" I doubt it's in the top 2000 words I use the most frequently in my posts. Can you look into that?
The context of my quote is you use political labels a lot for some one who objects to the word "conservative" being uttered.
Public accommodation... like... say social media?
Great point.
I mean, there's only one Facebook, but there are literally dozens of bakeries on any local google search.
Oh, and yes. If you aren't a public utility (or don't essentially operate as one) any small business should be able to refuse to do any kind of business they don't want to do, for whomever they don't want to do it for. Absolutely.
Someone wants to hire me to shoot a white nationalist wedding, I'm under no obligation to serve them and would decline because I don't agree with their politics. I don't need any other reason than that. But some other photographer turns down a lesbian couple's wedding, and I would be happy to take their money.
But I hate gays because I also think a small business should be able to serve or not serve whom they want? You do realize the last time this bakery was harassed, they wanted a dildo cake? I don't shoot porn and I wouldn't expect a reputable baker to have to bake it.
Uttered? no. Lazily misapplied? yes. My larger point was basically that you are lazy.
You clearly don't know what any of this is about. The internet goes beyond American borders, the Communications Decency Act pertains only to what happens here.
It's not about repealing 230 either, it's a question of whether those that receive extra protections are expected to maintain standards of fair and unbiased moderation. Facebook, et.al, claim they support free speech -- in their congressional testimony for example -- but do they really and how/should we hold them accountable?
You never actually engage in debates. You make a few jabs here and there with points that would be interesting to discuss and debate, and the second you encounter pushback, you retreat into sarcasm. I feel you could do better. Not sure why, but that's always been my opinion.
Yeah if a social media platform discriminated on the basis of sex or race that would be covered by the CRA
There is only one facebook, but there are literally dozens of social networks. I mean any ol' bakery will do if you don't care about the quality of your buttercream
Megapoke: small businesses should be able to discriminate against gay people.
True ally.
Also you keep saying "utility" I am not sure you know what that means.
That's right, it is okay to discriminate based on politics, not sexual orientation. You nailed the distinction.
Wow so far you have compared gay people wanting a wedding cake to white nationalists and satanists harassing bakers. I guess you are a true ally to the gays the same way you are a free speech warrior.
