The right NOT to be offended pt I (liberal version)

[Not2BSubjugated]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

This is NOT the same as the baker. The baker didn't kick the gay people out of the bakery and tell them they couldn't buy cake there. The baker simply refused to engage in a specific contract that would have required them to create an expression of a sentiment that they reject at a religious level.

Trump and the right aren't demanding that the social media companies create for us a specific product whereby they are forced to actively endorse ideas that they reject. All we're demanding is that they let us buy the same generic cake off of the shelf that they would sell to anybody of ANY political stripe.

We'll put the icing and the two grooms on that fucker ourselves, thanks.

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

This is NOT the same as the baker. The baker didn't kick the gay people out of the bakery and tell them they couldn't buy cake there. The baker simply refused to engage in a specific contract that would have required them to create an expression of a sentiment that they reject at a religious level.

Trump and the right aren't demanding that the social media companies create for us a specific product whereby they are forced to actively endorse ideas that they reject. All we're demanding is that they let us buy the same generic cake off of the shelf that they would sell to anybody of ANY political stripe.

Yeah. I know. It's different when we do it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

I know it's hard but keep trying.

 

[dblack]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

Which would be fine but that’s not you left wing dickheads. You are neither the performer or the club owner. You aren’t the patron buying a ticket for the show or someone just deciding not to go.

You are the assholes outside harassing the customers and attacking them for going to see something YOU don’t like. You assault people at the event, you threaten the club owner and the performers until everyone decides to not see it. You assholes are the cock suckers just in it to ruin shit for everyone. So don’t give me your horseshit reasoning.

I have no idea what you're yammering about. I'm not left wing.

Bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

Which would be fine but that’s not you left wing dickheads. You are neither the performer or the club owner. You aren’t the patron buying a ticket for the show or someone just deciding not to go.

You are the assholes outside harassing the customers and attacking them for going to see something YOU don’t like. You assault people at the event, you threaten the club owner and the performers until everyone decides to not see it. You assholes are the cock suckers just in it to ruin shit for everyone. So don’t give me your horseshit reasoning.

I have no idea what you're yammering about. I'm not left wing.

Bullshit.

No, it's true. I have no idea what you're yammering about.

I'm also not left wing. But feel free to find any posts of mine on here that you think show that I'm a leftist. Good luck!

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

This is NOT the same as the baker. The baker didn't kick the gay people out of the bakery and tell them they couldn't buy cake there. The baker simply refused to engage in a specific contract that would have required them to create an expression of a sentiment that they reject at a religious level.

Trump and the right aren't demanding that the social media companies create for us a specific product whereby they are forced to actively endorse ideas that they reject. All we're demanding is that they let us buy the same generic cake off of the shelf that they would sell to anybody of ANY political stripe.

Yeah. I know. It's different when we do it.

Ignoring the reasoning that I've explicitly stated doesn't cause it to cease to exist. There's no prize for "winning" this conversation, so if you don't want to acknowledge what I've said, you've actually got the option to just not respond. Seems like it'd be less trouble.

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

This is NOT the same as the baker. The baker didn't kick the gay people out of the bakery and tell them they couldn't buy cake there. The baker simply refused to engage in a specific contract that would have required them to create an expression of a sentiment that they reject at a religious level.

Trump and the right aren't demanding that the social media companies create for us a specific product whereby they are forced to actively endorse ideas that they reject. All we're demanding is that they let us buy the same generic cake off of the shelf that they would sell to anybody of ANY political stripe.

Yeah. I know. It's different when we do it.

Ignoring the reasoning that I've explicitly stated doesn't cause it to cease to exist. There's no prize for "winning" this conversation, so if you don't want to acknowledge what I've said, you've actually got the option to just not respond. Seems like it'd be less trouble.

My point is that those are distinctions without a difference. It's the same principle. The only difference is the target. As I said before, if these tech companies hadn't pissed off Trump, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's what drives me crazy about both parties. They pretend to adhere to principles and values, but it's totally fake. And this issue shines a big ole spotlight on it.

When liberals chant "bake the cake" they, some of them, come up with weak rationalizations about rights or "public accommodations" or whatever. But in truth, they just want to beat up racists who are doing things they don't like. Trumpsters don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech - they're just pissed off at social media sites who aren't on board with Trump. It's a total flip-flop on the part of both parties and the true believers don't even notice.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

Facebook is more in the nature of a media outlet. They are the new public square. If they allow one expressed opinion they must allow all.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

This is NOT the same as the baker. The baker didn't kick the gay people out of the bakery and tell them they couldn't buy cake there. The baker simply refused to engage in a specific contract that would have required them to create an expression of a sentiment that they reject at a religious level.

Trump and the right aren't demanding that the social media companies create for us a specific product whereby they are forced to actively endorse ideas that they reject. All we're demanding is that they let us buy the same generic cake off of the shelf that they would sell to anybody of ANY political stripe.

Yeah. I know. It's different when we do it.

Ignoring the reasoning that I've explicitly stated doesn't cause it to cease to exist. There's no prize for "winning" this conversation, so if you don't want to acknowledge what I've said, you've actually got the option to just not respond. Seems like it'd be less trouble.

My point is that those are distinctions without a difference. It's the same principle. The only difference is the target. As I said before, if these tech companies hadn't pissed off Trump, we wouldn't even be talking about this. That's what drives me crazy about both parties. They pretend to adhere to principles and values, but it's totally fake. And this issue shines a big ole spotlight on it.

When liberals chant "bake the cake" they, some of them, come up with weak rationalizations about rights or "public accommodations" or whatever. But in truth, they just want to beat up racists who are doing things they don't like. Trumpsters don't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech - they're just pissed off at social media sites who aren't on board with Trump. It's a total flip-flop on the part of both parties and the true believers don't even notice.

These things are only based on the same principles, again, if you completely ignore the nuance therein.

Being asked to sell someone the generic product that you turn out as a matter of course is NOT the same as being asked to construct a specific artistic expression of something that you don't want to express. The baker was willing to sell a generic cake to the gay couple. The social media companies aren't allowing people on the right, and even some moderate lefties, the same access to their generic inventory as they would anybody else.

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action. Not only are these not the same principle, they're WORLDS apart. Your use of your own lack of nuance as an argument is becoming an unfortunate pattern.

 

[WEATHER53]

Offended is s chosen state of mind. No one else has the power to make you feel that way much less be in a perpetual state of it.

 

[dblack]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

Facebook is more in the nature of a media outlet. They are the new public square. If they allow one expressed opinion they must allow all.

Why?

 

[dblack]

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action.

Which is which?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action.

Which is which?

Do you honestly need to ask? It's SO OBVIOUS.

Is Trump asking Twitter to build him a special platform? Is any conservative? Are we asking Twitter to create an artistic representation of a message that they don't want to endorse?

Nope. Just stop denying service based on political opinions that you don't like. No special service. Just basic service. Just that generic cake on the shelf. As long as you don't kick us out for being gay, no lawsuit.

 

[dblack]

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action.

Which is which?

Do you honestly need to ask?

Is Trump asking Twitter to build him a special platform? Is any conservative? Are we asking Twitter to create an artistic representation of a message that they don't want to endorse?

I actually read it the other way around the first time. It seems the bakers are obviously discriminating against a type of customer, and fb is refusing to host information on their website that they believe to be harmful and false. But that seemed counter to your other arguments, which is why I asked.

Just stop denying service based on political opinions that you don't like. No special service. Just basic service. Just that generic cake on the shelf. As long as you don't kick us out for being gay, no lawsuit.

Are you saying political affiliation should be a protected class?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

Facebook is more in the nature of a media outlet. They are the new public square. If they allow one expressed opinion they must allow all.

Why?

Diversity. You want diversity don't you?

 

[dblack]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

Facebook is more in the nature of a media outlet. They are the new public square. If they allow one expressed opinion they must allow all.

Why?

Diversity. You want diversity don't you?

No. I'm more interested in free society and free markets. I'm generally opposed to government dictating to business.

It's just hard to take all the rationalizations seriously, when it's clearly a political hit. Trump is pissed because (some) social media companies are defying him, so he wants to "go after" them. Cue the excuse brigade.

 

[satrebil]

We're past the point where we're talking about a night club here and there that doesn't want to host a comedian. We're talking about online platforms that have become the place where a majority of our nation's public discourse takes place.

Oh, I see. Cool. Just like socialism. Are you a Marxist?

No. I don't view public accomodations laws to be Marxism. I believe that nationalizing industries in an attempt to create a post-scarcity society with no classes and no leaders is Marxism. Brush up on your definitions.

Yeah... all those terms kinda blur for me. It's all the same principle, so I never really bother distinguishing them.

So you're citing your own lack of nuance as proof of your claims? Holy shit, that's so progressive that I don't even know how to respond.

For the record, preventing situations where a person can be gridlocked out of being able to exercise their rights, by a critical mass of dominant businesses who refuse to serve them, does NOT run along the same principles as trying to create a classless, leaderless society. I can't believe I have to spell that out.

What? Dood, you're the one who wants to nationalize (oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to use the pc-word: "regulate") facebook because the majority of people use it.

It's that unlimited enthusiasm for state control that makes you bastards so dangerous.

Private industry is already regulated 6 ways from Sunday by the state. Ever hear of OSHA? The FDA? Minimum wage? Equal opportunity employment? Zoning?

Stop acting as if a directive to make a social media platform actually operate AS A PLATFORM would be the end of private business.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action.

Which is which?

Do you honestly need to ask?

Is Trump asking Twitter to build him a special platform? Is any conservative? Are we asking Twitter to create an artistic representation of a message that they don't want to endorse?

I actually read it the other way around the first time. It seems the bakers are obviously discriminating against a type of customer, and fb is refusing to host information on their website that they believe to be harmful and false. But that seemed counter to your other arguments, which is why I asked.

Just stop denying service based on political opinions that you don't like. No special service. Just basic service. Just that generic cake on the shelf. As long as you don't kick us out for being gay, no lawsuit.

Are you saying political affiliation should be a protected class?

I see. Nah, I don't see hosting opinions that Twitter finds objectionable, when the ability to post your own PERSONAL opinions is literally the generic service that they offer to everybody, as being the same as being asked to actually actively create a product that endorses a view that Twitter finds objectionable. They're only being asked to give non-progressives the same leeway to use that generic product as progressives are granted, which would be the equivalent of the gay couple just asking to purchase a generic cake off the shelf, and being turned down. Obviously, that isn't what perpetuated the lawsuit.

Yes, I do believe political affiliation should be a protected property (protected class would imply special privilege for a particular ideology, all I want is equal access for any and all political "classes"). We're watching numerous examples of a critical mass of an entire industry simultaneously and arbitrarily gridlocking people from access to a generic service that they offer to everybody else, based on political beliefs. I don't think that communists should be forced to starve if they get stuck in a town where the food sellers won't sell to them any more than black people should.

 

[satrebil]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

If a nightclub owner decides not to host Lenny Bruce it is not censorship. It is just a nightclub owner not hosting Lenny. Bruce. If an individual decides that because they don't like Lenny Bruce no one else can hear him. They will disrupt the performance and ruin it for everyone. That is known as the heckler's veto. It is censorship. Get it. The unlawful censor is removed.

Nope. That makes no sense. You seem to be implying that Facebook is making it so that no one else can hear Trump. And that's nonsense. You can hear him on nearly every other media outlet 24/7. Facebook is not the government. Let's say it again. Facebook is not the government. They have no power to control or silence anyone. All the can do is refuse to host their posts. That's it. There's nothing (yet) unlawful about that and their shouldn't be. No business should be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with.

Facebook is not the government.

Facebook is more in the nature of a media outlet. They are the new public square. If they allow one expressed opinion they must allow all.

Why?

Diversity. You want diversity don't you?

No. I'm more interested in free society and free markets. I'm generally opposed to government dictating to business.

It's just hard to take all the rationalizations seriously, when it's clearly a political hit. Trump is pissed because (some) social media companies are defying him, so he wants to "go after" them. Cue the excuse brigade.

Trump is not the only "victim" of social media censorship.

I don't like government dictating to business either. If Facebook/Twitter/Youtube/etc want to operate as publishers, fine. Then rescind their Section 230 protections and make them liable for things they publish (or allow to be published). If they want to retain their 230 status then they need to honor all legally protected speech. You can't have it both ways.