Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again? How is that not simple capitalism?
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship. If a customer at a restaurant threatens a member of the staff, you want to make it illegal for the restaurant owner to throw the customer out.
You're the one who said the only thing to counter speech is more speech. So it's very clear you think private companies should not be allowed to control what their property gets used for. Otherwise, why complain?
Saying "people should not do X" is not the same as saying "government should prevent X", however popular the idea seems that government should be a helicopter parent to everyone, making sure that no feelings are hurt and the children make no mistakes.
Apparently, acting like a troll is a core part of being an evil atheist.
No I think what he means is that he wants the government to step in if say a cake shop refused to bake a cake for a gay couple and would want the government to force them to make it under threat of being bankrupted and sent to jail.
They only refused to make a wedding cake. They did state they would make any other kind of cake. The ruling was about not forcing someone to participate in an event that was against their religious values. It was not about being able to refuse service to someone for being gay. But it sounds so much better to call the bakers gay hating bigots than to actually discuss the very narrow objection covered by the case/ruling. The gay couple should have just moved on and found another baker that was happy to t
Sadly, you partly make a good argument, and then you resort to rhetoric such that you won't convince anybody. I absolutely agree with you that, if I were this couple, I would *not* want that baker making my cake. But what works at a small scale does not work at a large scale. The issue at hand wasn't really about cakes. What about life-saving stomach ulcer medication? Should a pharmacist have a right to deny that to a patient because it is against his/her religious beliefs? If I had a stomach ulcer, I
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Actually, no, I'd just like people to stop being bullies. There are two situations people are drawing an equivalency for:
1. A small bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay couple. The gay couple sue the bakery.
2. Parler is trying to be a free speech "open square" kind of platform. AWS and others are dropping them as customers.
In both of these situations it is a company (or several) deciding not to do business with another entity. Okay, fine. But there's an important distinction people are missing...
>Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
I would like the US government to not provide a specific and direct legal protection for this censorship through section 230. Removing that would level the playing field - at present it is far from level, to stay the least. The US government, through section 230, is directly enabling this censorship of speech.
slippery slope (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Re:slippery slope (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Did I say that? I did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think censorship is bad, and I criticize AWS for doing it, but that's my freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You should work on your reading comprehension, it sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "people should not do X" is not the same as saying "government should prevent X", however popular the idea seems that government should be a helicopter parent to everyone, making sure that no feelings are hurt and the children make no mistakes.
Apparently, acting like a troll is a core part of being an evil atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They only refused to make a wedding cake. They did state they would make any other kind of cake. The ruling was about not forcing someone to participate in an event that was against their religious values. It was not about being able to refuse service to someone for being gay. But it sounds so much better to call the bakers gay hating bigots than to actually discuss the very narrow objection covered by the case/ruling. The gay couple should have just moved on and found another baker that was happy to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals believe everyone should acquiesce all freedom to big government
You discredit anything you say with such ridiculously stupid mouth farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
Actually, no, I'd just like people to stop being bullies. There are two situations people are drawing an equivalency for:
1. A small bakery refuses to make a cake for a gay couple. The gay couple sue the bakery.
2. Parler is trying to be a free speech "open square" kind of platform. AWS and others are dropping them as customers.
In both of these situations it is a company (or several) deciding not to do business with another entity. Okay, fine. But there's an important distinction people are missing...
Re: (Score:2)
>Oh, so you want government to step in and force private entities to stop their censorship.
I would like the US government to not provide a specific and direct legal protection for this censorship through section 230.
Removing that would level the playing field - at present it is far from level, to stay the least.
The US government, through section 230, is directly enabling this censorship of speech.