- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Business open to the public are not the same a residenceIt's more akin to saying that you don't have the right to remove someone from your house if they are engaged in exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
In other words: Another person's freedom of speech outweighs your right to your property.
That wasn't what it did though. It would have applied not to publically-owned government platforms, but to private sector platforms with at least 50 million monthly users.
Even if you have 50 million customers in your bar, you still have the right to 86 a belligerent drunk.
Not an individual, but does an entire state count?Can you name me even one prominent left winger who supports the legalization of all drugs?
You've named a bunch of libertarians, or in Buckley's case, a conservative approaching the issue from a libertarian perspective. Almost all the drug legalization efforts and criminal justice reform in this country comes from the left.All drugs should be legal, not just weed, and I can name you many right wingers who support full legalization of all drugs including the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, and many others. Can you name me even one prominent left winger who supports the legalization of all drugs? Even Trump supported legalization of all drugs at one time:
View attachment 67363335
It didn't ban banning. It prevented targeted supression of speech. Case in point, the big three in social media blocked all discussion of the theory that Covid came from the Wuhan Institute. Now, that theory has a lot of traction and the support for blocking the theory was revealed as a hoax perpetrated by the company that funded the Wuhan Institute with NIH money.
We are lucky that that lie didn't survive. But what lie will social media support in the future that does survive?
P.s. Oh, another good example is Hunter Biden's laptop. That story was suppressed by social media and might have changed the election.
Tiffany and Company isn't in the business of promoting speech either. But good job knocking down that straw-man.It doesn't matter.
Head into your Tiffany & Co and start yelling to everyone in the store about how Covid was created in a Wuhan Lab. See what happens. Tiffany & Co has the right to remove you from their store. You might think that Tiffany & Co is suppressing your 1st Amendment rights, but you would be wrong. The first amendment restricts what kinds of laws the government can pass. It doesn't entitle you to use Tiffany & Co as a platform for your nonsense.
Neither is social media. They "allow" speech, they don't "promote" speech.Tiffany and Company isn't in the business of promoting speech either. But good job knocking down that straw-man.
Correct. As usual, Republicans are in favor of freedom of speech only when it benefits them politically.I'd just say forcing someone to be on your private platform (despite them, say, having gotten banned due to not adhering to your community standards) is an abridgement of YOUR free speech rights.
Granted. But do I have the constitutionally protected right to walk into your business that is open to the public with a megaphone and a sign reading "Republicans are White Supremacists?" Should the government legally bar you from having me removed from your premises, since I am engaged in constitutionally protected speech?Business open to the public are not the same a residence
You've named a bunch of libertarians, or in Buckley's case, a conservative approaching the issue from a libertarian perspective.
The only state thus far in the Union to legalize all drugs is Oregon.
Not an individual, but does an entire state count?
Edit: If you want an individual, Vaush is the most prominent leftist I can think of that argues for drug decriminalization. I know Bernie does to some extent. I can't remember if he goes as far as all drugs being legal.
Hold up, isn't decriminalizing a more extreme step than legalizing? Something being legal means there are still laws regarding its use. States with legalized weed for example. Doesn't decriminalizing imply that you aren't regulating it in any way?Decriminalizing is not even close to legalization. You could legally have booze in your home during alcohol prohibition. In fact, in the months prior to the passage of the volstead act, people stocked up with as much booze and beer as they could afford.
So when Twitter says that their mission is to "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers", they aren't promoting free speech? HmmmNeither is social media. They "allow" speech, they don't "promote" speech.
Hold up, isn't decriminalizing a more extreme step than legalizing?
The law is clearly unconstitutional.Most of the time when conservatives clamor for "freedom of speech," what they are actually doing is trying to obliterate other people's freedom of association. There are huge issues going on in the realm of big tech and social media, but you can always count on the right to ignore all the real issues and make everything about their perceived victimhood.
Federal judge blocks Texas social media 'censorship' law
The law would ban companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking content based on political viewpoints.www.cnet.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?