Question for Lefties

[Votto]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

 

[Thoth001]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

They are ok with it, because it hasn't effected them yet and it makes them feel powerful. But just like most tyrannies sooner or later it will effect them also.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

 

[Votto]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

 

[Votto]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

They are ok with it, because it hasn't effected them yet and it makes them feel powerful. But just like most tyrannies sooner or later it will effect them also.

The checks and balances of power have become so corrupted, that the state can now be openly hypocritical and blatantly partisan with impunity. But that does not stop the partisan chimp trolls from trying to defend them, which is pretty entertaining at times.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

 

[Votto]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

The law says they can't. Do I personally think a place should be able to serve whoever they want? Yes. Do I believe that the public should know so they can completely avoid that business? Yes.

Facebook or any similar site can censor whatever they want. If you are unhappy about that, avoid them.

 

[Thoth001]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

They are ok with it, because it hasn't effected them yet and it makes them feel powerful. But just like most tyrannies sooner or later it will effect them also.

The checks and balances of power have become so corrupted, that the state can now be openly hypocritical and blatantly partisan with impunity. But that does not stop the partisan chimp trolls from trying to defend them, which is pretty entertaining at times.

I like to refer to them as braindead zombies. But chimp trolls is good also.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

No, it's illegal. Because how do you know a person is definitely gay or black? How would you like having to worry about stupid shit like that all the time? Written material makes for excellent evidence in court. Appearances and mannerisms not so much, dear.

 

[occupied]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

 

[BULLDOG]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

Since the right pushed through all those right to work laws, firing for political views isn't a problem. They can fire you for any reason, or for no reason.

 

[Rigby5]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

But as a leftist, with the supremacy of individual rights in mind, both censorship and firing based on political views is supposed to be entirely and completely illegal.
Those who claim it is not enumerated so then is not an individual right, totally do not understand how law is supposed to work.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
The only legal basis for censorship or firing, is when it is necessary in order to protect the rights of someone else.

 

[Rigby5]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

No they can not legally censor.
DARPA created and still runs much of the internet, and when providers are allowed access, it is based on fair use regulations by the FCC that do NOT allow arbitrary censorship.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

But as a leftist, with the supremacy of individual rights in mind, both censorship and firing based on political views is supposed to be entirely and completely illegal.
Those who claim it is not enumerated so then is not an individual right, totally do not understand how law is supposed to work.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
The only legal basis for censorship or firing, is when it is necessary in order to protect the rights of someone else.

I imagine Facebook figured they were protecting the rights of others especially after Jan 6.

 

[pknopp]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

No they can not legally censor.

And yet they can, just like this site and nearly every single site does. Your opinion means very little here.

 

[BULLDOG]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

But as a leftist, with the supremacy of individual rights in mind, both censorship and firing based on political views is supposed to be entirely and completely illegal.
Those who claim it is not enumerated so then is not an individual right, totally do not understand how law is supposed to work.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
The only legal basis for censorship or firing, is when it is necessary in order to protect the rights of someone else.

Unfortunately, getting fired without a reason can happen to just about anyone. In many cases, unless there is a contract or bargaining agreement, employees are considered covered under employment at will, which means your employer doesn't need a reason to fire you. Why do you think companies hate unions so much?

 

[Rigby5]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

What does that even mean?

A site can censor whatever it wants. That does mean I support them censoring but I understand they can.

They are discriminating.

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

The law says they can't. Do I personally think a place should be able to serve whoever they want? Yes. Do I believe that the public should know so they can completely avoid that business? Yes.

Facebook or any similar site can censor whatever they want. If you are unhappy about that, avoid them.

Wrong.
Restaurants can NOT be allowed to serve only whom they want, and neither can Facebook or anyone adding value to the internet.
Political discrimination is extremely and fundamentally illegal in all ways.
The only problem is there is the FCC is not about to bother doing anything about it.
But it is still totally illegal.

 

[DBA]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

 

[Rigby5]

So should a restaurant, for example, be allowed to not serve gays or blacks?

The law says they can't, but it is the same thing.

No, it's illegal. Because how do you know a person is definitely gay or black? How would you like having to worry about stupid shit like that all the time? Written material makes for excellent evidence in court. Appearances and mannerisms not so much, dear.

Evidence has nothing to do with it.
If you are open to the public, then any discrimination is illegal, period.
Restaurant or internet provide is the same thing.