• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

Ziggurat said:
Have I called for legal sanction against Facebook? No, I haven't. So what the hell are you getting your panties in a bunch for? Do you not like me using my freedom of speech to criticize them?
Click to expand...

The only bunched panties are on you. The rest of us are fine with the racists not getting a soapbox. We're trying to unbunch your panties.
 
AnonyMoose said:
In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.
 
Ziggurat said:
But the concept of free speech is broader than the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and in ways not often appreciated. Any democratic freedom is a political freedom. Political freedoms are extensive to all in democracy because of democracy's bedrock principal, political equality. Without recognition of an equal voice in making and standing before the law, then there is no freedom, only reserved privileges. There are many arguments that can be made from this important qualifying distinction regarding current and traditional discourse, one being that on the left, dropping the political qualifier leads to excesses of one kind, and on the right, dropping the qualifier for equality leads to others, mostly of a deadlier nature.

The idiocy or malice, take your pick, has gone on for centuries, citing supposed differences among ethnicities or genders to justify the denial of choice and voice, when those differences are irrelevant. (No, not even Neanderthal genes give a leg up).

But to the point: speech that directly denies or seeks to suppress political equality does not deserve protection, as it denies the very foundation of the freedom it claims to do so.

Game over.
 
Ziggurat said:
You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.
Click to expand...

Well that's even worse. That means you think racists have moral and intellectual protection, not legal protection.
 
Ziggurat said:
You really don't understand the concept of free speech. Note that I said concept, not law. Not everything is codified in laws.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about laws, I'm addressing your "concept of free speech is broader than the constitution" comment.

Yes, the concept of free speech is broader in terms of society as a whole.

But it is not, however, a broadly applied concept in terms of individual business entities, their operations, nor their administrative policies.

Period.



So I'll say it again for clarity's sake:

In relation to a privately owned business? No it's not.

Free speech does not apply, at all. Ever. A business operation is under no obligation to allow people to freely use that privately owned soapbox to screech upon. Ever.

Even if that business's entire business model is, in actual fact, a soapbox.
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well that's even worst. That means you think racists have moral and intellectual protection, not legal protection.
Click to expand...

It isn't the racists that need protection. It's the concept of freedom of speech. If you only want to protect speech you agree with, you don't believe in freedom of speech. You cannot have freedom of speech without extending it to everyone, including the racists. You do not extend it to them for their benefit, you do so for yours. "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" The idea applies here too, even if the law does not.
 
Ziggurat said:
It isn't the racists that need protection. It's the concept of freedom of speech. If you only want to protect speech you agree with, you don't believe in freedom of speech. You cannot have freedom of speech without extending it to everyone, including the racists. You do not extend it to them for their benefit, you do so for yours. "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" The idea applies here too, even if the law does not.
Click to expand...


Again: The concept of free speech does not apply to a business entity.
 
AnonyMoose said:
Again: The concept of free speech does not apply to a business entity.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Property rights may conflict with freedom of speech, and those property rights may properly win, but the concept still applies, even if it isn't the only or most important concern.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course it does. Property rights may conflict with freedom of speech, and those property rights may properly win, but the concept still applies, even if it isn't the only or most important concern.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

A business does not have to let people "do free speech" carte blanche. Ever.

A business can boot you out the door because they don't like what's coming out of your mouth. A business can boot you off their website because they don't like what's coming out of your keyboard mouth.

Physical, tangible property geography need not apply.

There is no 'free speech' in business operations. There is no 'free speech' in business policies. There is no 'free speech' in business practice.

Businesses have absolutely no connection whatsoever to this "concept of free speech" thing.

Free speech to a business is a non-concept. Free speech has zero relevance to a business's existence.
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
But to the point: speech that directly denies or seeks to suppress political equality does not deserve protection, as it denies the very foundation of the freedom it claims to do so.

Game over.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't even matter; people are arguing about the wrong thing.

The racists' speech is protected. That protection just doesn't include an obligation on Facebook's part to host it, nor does Facebook's decision to stop hosting it mean that the racists don't have "free speech" anymore.
 
Just say that you don't believe in free speech. It's shorter, and more accurate.
 
I think free speech is a tremendously important right for the citizens of any country to have.
 
p0lka said:
I dunno, it does hit the point quite succinctly.
Not that it's right of course.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of xkcd, but this particular comic is neither witty nor insightful. Instead of a free exchange of ideas, it seems to subscribe to the notion of ideas being a tested against popular acceptance.

I'm an immigrant, but I'm a huge fan of the 1st amendment. I didn't really realise how rare the concept of free speech is before. Free speech protections are only needed for unpopular ideas. Saying that I like puppies and kittens doesn't require protection. Galileo saying the earth moves around the sun instead of the other way about does (or did).

I'd never ban a flat earther just because I consider their ideas objectively moronic.
 
Ron Obvious said:
So would I. That's easy pickings. How about an organization that advocates for Sharia law to be the law of the land?
Click to expand...
That would depend entirely on whether the group promoted violence to further their cause.

It's not defined by Muslim fear-mongering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom