Shouldn't public accomodation laws apply to Twitter, Facebook, etc.?

[K9Buck]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

 

[Moonglow]

If they didn't make you sign a disclaimer before you use their services you would be correct. But that is not the case, just like the agreement you sign with USMB allows them to control the content of your free speech.

 

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

Under which law would we 'require Twitter, Facebook, etc to permit speech'? Specifically.

 

[Pellinore]

A baker cannot refuse service to a member of a protected class, due to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Some states recognized being gay as a protected class, but others didn't. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that it counts for workplace firing reasons, and though it hasn't been tested for other applications (like this one), I think it's safe to say that precedent was set. So let's say being gay is probably a protected class.

Being an asshole is not a protected class. Twitter and Facebook are fine.

Plus, what Moonglow said.

 

[Skylar]

A baker cannot refuse service to a member of a protected class, due to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The baker in question didn't fall afoul of Title VII.

Some states recognized being gay as a protected class, but others didn't. Last June, the Supreme Court ruled that it counts for workplace firing reasons, and though it hasn't been tested for other applications (like this one), I think it's safe to say that precedent was set. So let's say being gay is probably a protected class.

Being an asshole is not a protected class. Twitter and Facebook are fine.

Plus, what Moonglow said.

Fair.

 

[Penelope]

Its just a fund raising gimmick. Private companies can do whatever they want.

 

[candycorn]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

No.

If you order a cake from a bakery that sells the cakes you ordered...there is no reason a baker shouldn't bake the cake.
If you order a cake from a bakery that doesn't sell the cakes you ordered (like a 62 layer cake)...the baker has a reason not to bake the cake.

If you post something on Facebook that doesn't violate their terms of agreement...Facebook lets you post it.
If you post something on Facebook that does violate their terms of agreement...Facebook has every right to ban you.

Lesson is don't be a dick. Trump supporters have a very hard time with that.

 

[Skylar]

Its just a fund raising gimmick. Private companies can do whatever they want.

I believe it was Trump himself that said that his twitter account was not subject to the 1st amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

No.

If you order a cake from a bakery that sells the cakes you ordered...there is no reason a baker shouldn't bake the cake.
If you order a cake from a bakery that doesn't sell the cakes you ordered (like a 62 layer cake)...the baker has a reason not to bake the cake.

If you post something on Facebook that doesn't violate their terms of agreement...Facebook lets you post it.
If you post something on Facebook that does violate their terms of agreement...Facebook has every right to ban you.

Lesson is don't be a dick. Trump supporters have a very hard time with that.

Increasingly, Trump and his supporters are demanding freedom from consequence and criticism. They want to do whatever they want to whomever they want to do it.....and suffer no consequences of any kind.

That's not how any of this works.

 

[xband]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. They can have their gay wedding cakes.

 

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. They can have their gay wedding cakes.

Its a state law.

 

[K9Buck]

Being an asshole is not a protected class.

So you support censoring people who express ideas that deviate from the party line. That's nice.

 

[xband]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. Thaley can have their gay wedding cakes.

Its a state law.

SCOTUS makes it Federal Law.

 

[K9Buck]

Leftists love discriminating, as long as they're the ones doing the discriminating. Anything to serve the party, right, comrades?

 

[Skylar]

Being an asshole is not a protected class.

So you support censoring people who express ideas that deviate from the party line. That's nice.

So you'd have no problem with me coming to your home.....spray painting "Black Lives Matter" on your livingroom wall, and forcing you to keep it there against your will?

Because if you prevented me from doing any of that, you're 'supporting censorship' by your own standards.

 

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. Thaley can have their gay wedding cakes.

Its a state law.

SCOTUS makes it Federal Law.

SCOTUS allows the State law to stand. They didn't extend their ruling to the federal government. Or any other State. But limited it to the State law they were reviewing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shouldn't public accomodation laws apply to Twitter, Facebook, etc.?

No.

Public accommodations laws as authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence ensure the stability of local markets and all other interrelated markets (see, for example, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. US (1964)). Pursuant to this case law, for businesses open to the general public to discriminate based on race, religion, or national origin would be disruptive to local markets and undermine their stability.

That is not the case with social media such as FB and Twitter, whose revenue is generated through advertising and services provided to other online entities.

Public accommodations laws serve as necessary and proper regulatory measures to foster beneficial economic public policy.

Social media function as private organizations at liberty to determine membership (see, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)). The First Amendment right to freedom of association prohibits government from compelling private organizations such as FB or Twitter to accommodate members they don’t wish to accommodate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

Not really.

Had the bakery said "we don't do specialized cakes" then no one could go in demanding they do a specialized cake for them.

If Twitter and Facebook say they only do speech that isn't "offensive" or "hateful" or "inaccurate" and it applies this evenly to all people, then there isn't a problem.

If they told people they could post whatever they like, and THEN turned around and banned someone for saying something, that'd be different.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Brick and mortar business open to the general public are in no manner similar to social media.

 

[xband]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. Thaley can have their gay wedding cakes.

Its a state law.

SCOTUS makes it Federal Law.

SCOTUS allows the State law to stand. They didn't extend their ruling to the federal government. Or any other State. But limited it to the State law they were reviewing.

Jeeze, SCOTUS made a ruling and they are free to walk amongst us.