Tarkan wrote:Kurt wrote:el3so wrote:Kurt wrote:How would you treat them?
You guys have that Freedom of Speech thing going...
Guess I'd have to tolerate them spouting their nonsense, hope law enforcement keeps an eye on things and keep my head on a swivel when participating in demonstrations.
Tolerance is not part of it.
The State cannot pass laws limiting speech...In fact objecting, but not limiting is supposed to be the nullifier of the bad parts of free speech since everyone can speak.
That is why the Right objects to "Cancel Culture" since it takes the free reactions to their free expressions and chooses to regulate whom and how to associate with people.
One of my objections to the American right is just how delicate and fragile they are...as soon as private companies and people "deplatform" someone they immediatly want to pass laws to prohibit that. Deplatforming is not suppression of speech, it is actually protected speech as well.
As well as property rights.
Not long ago the Supreme Court decided that donating money was protected speech with speech being defined as expression rather than words. A private entity choosing to ridicule or choose to deny access is also speech, even when there are financial benefits or losses due to such expression.
Except of course, social media is the modern town square.
Just like 1st Amendment rights have been extended to email and phone conversations, there is an argument that they should be extended to speech on tech *platforms* where the platforms are afforded legal protection because they are *platforms* and not *publishers*. Tech companies want to have their cake and eat it too.
And the government is doing an end-around on the Constitution and laws. They aren't spying on you, private companies are spying on you. Of course, the government is paying the private companies to spy on you, but never mind that.
We are lurching our way into a social credit system run by Puritanical leftist social justice warriors. These people are literally the ideological merging of the Puritans of the 1600s with the Bolsheviks.
I agree with you on the Bolsheviks thing and the puritan thing but I think we disagree on who is who. Bolsheviks proclaimed a majority when they had none and used that help take power. They always said they had more people than they did. They did not have nearly the percentage the Trumpers had but they still did more with less and lasted 70+ years with it too.
Puritans were all in favor of laws banning Non Calvinist theology and lifestyle but would bitch when Puritanism was not included in a town hall meeting. Sorta like bitching about deplatforming while passing laws prohibiting things like the 1619 project or race theory that critiques things like Black slavery.
Besides, if "equal time" on platforms had not been removed in the Reagan Era thus making it so no Liberal counterpart would be needed for Rush Limbaugh on the radio then the Town Square argument might have some more teeth. But it doesn't. Businesses are private property and they are not obliged to provide a platform for everyone who wants one. This means that they can manipulate public opinion, as media always has.
But then you do what "Alternative" media has always done and that is form your own media. The right has no fortitude for this stuff, they just want it handed to them. It's not like OAN or News Max doesn't exist either. You got your voice, it is just small. You are being slapped down, you handle that by creating your own stuff and supporting people who do. You do it outside facebook and twitter. You do it without google search rankings. It can be done just like the internet did in 1997.